Home > London plot thickens, as does propaganda
July 18, 2005-As was the case following 9/11 and all post-9/11 "terror" events, an official new propaganda legend is being constructed to justify whatever Anglo-American-Israeli aggression that is sure to follow.
Meanwhile, the list of unanswered questions, irregularities, and inconsistencies continues to grow, along with dramatically zigzagging cover stories and anti-Muslim agitation. Another large-scale government and media deception is well underway.
Two recent observations by the astute (but anonymous) Xymphora at "Birth of the London Bomb Official Story" (July 13) and "Yet more on the London Bombings" (July 15) provide analysis on the mounting anomalies. William Bowles and Edward Teague ask, "Were the London Bombings a set up?" "The 7/7 London Papers" is another site that provides a timeline exposing problems with the official version. Independent researchers like these, not the mainstream media, are the only ones undertaking this important investigation.
It is already known that the UK authorities received advance warning of a terrorist attack-from Israel. So did Benjamin Netanyahu. Stratfor confirms evidence of foreknowledge in this report: "Israel warned UK about possible attacks" (July 7). The analysis of Bowles/Teague casts doubt on many aspects of the emerging legend of the four bombers-today’s version of 9/11’s "19 hijackers."
London is already playing out in a way all too similar to the byzantine 9/11 terror propaganda construct described by Chaim Kupferberg. As Bowles and Teague wrote, "without the four men to tell their side of the story, it’s all too easy to make the facts fits the theory as it serves the larger ideological objective of the state to present them as ’fanatics.’"
Other parallels with 9/11 (and Bali, Madrid, etc.) are too obvious to ignore. Researcher and activist Jeff Strahl notes:
"The media obediently follow the cues provided by the US and British governments, and read the handed-down script regarding the London bombings, even as crucial details are being changed daily; not even a pause in the face of mounting inconsistencies. And this includes the "progressive" media, be it The Nation or Pacifica Radio, eager to prove they are, of course, not supportive of ’terrorists.’ Read or listen all you want, you will find virtually no reference to many questions being raised about the official accounts. This is quite similar to how the 9/11 events have been treated. If people don’t seriously press the media, the latest propaganda will become ’fact,’ as has happened with 9/11, whose crucial details remain unexamined, whose official story remains accepted across the political spectrum.
"Why and how did former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu get a warning to stay away from a place where he was to speak, located above one of the blast sites? How does ’suicide bombers’ square with earlier police claims of timing devices? Why did the ’suspects’ leave a car full of explosives in a parking lot in Luton, 30 miles from London? (Did they expect someone to find the car and put the explosives to good use?) What about the anti-terrorism exercises scheduled for the same hour in which the bombings took place? How did former head of the Mossad, Efraim Halevi, writing in the Jerusalem Post on July 7, the day of the attacks, know that the bombs went off simultaneously, (when the London police did not say so for days)? And how could he claim they were ’nearly perfect’? Why did the ’suspects’ take credit cards along on a suicide mission?
"Authorities now say the explosives used were not military grade after all, but home brews. Seems like they had a tough time explaining how the supposed culprits could get military grade stuff. The Boston Herald reported yesterday that one of the supposed culprits carried not only his own ID, but also documents of one of the others. How did such documents survive the blasts, which should have torn their bodies into small pieces? This is the same as the magic 9/11 passport that appeared in the rubble.
"The supposed mastermind has been arrested in Egypt today, but he denies any connection. Not content with a car full of explosives, he left behind a house full of explosives, for someone to find and put to good use. Shades of 9/11 again, i.e., the car left at an airport parking lot with a Koran and a flight manual for a 767 in Arabic."
The London event also fits the post-9/11 pattern in other ways. There continues to be no mention of the fact that 1) "Islamic terror," including Al-Qaeda, is a creation of Anglo-American military intelligence; 2) these groups remain key instruments of Anglo-American policy-directly and indirectly guided, and controlled, by CIA, MI6 and affiliated intelligence agencies, such as Pakistan’s ISI.
According to new reports, some of London’s four bombers were trained in Pakistan-but there has been nothing in the media reports about the nature of this training. Pakistan, and its ISI, remains one of biggest elephants in a stinking post-9/11 living room.
As Bush and Blair bluster for the cameras, as the only beneficiaries of the horror, backlash against Muslims has reignited. Time Magazine’s coverage (July 18) was typical. Across a number of articles on London, Time immediately attributed responsibility to "jihadists," "jihadism," "bin Ladenism," "lumpen jihadists" and Al-Qaeda "terrorists," quoting conspiracy theories from officials and "security experts" desperate to tie the bombings to "Al-Qaeda fanatics." All before any factual evidence was available to support these conclusions.
Somewhat more revealing, but not in the way intended, is where Michael Elliot’s Time headline article offered this:
"According to a confidential report produced the day after the bombing by a private London security firm, Aegis Defense Services, Ltd., which was seen and read by Pentagon officials, the team was probably four to six strong . . . The Aegis report says it is possible that the explosives were ’constructed by an experienced bomb maker, possibly coming to the U.K. for that very purpose.’"
Aegis and its chief Tim Spicer are intimately involved with the Pentagon’s Iraq operations. Spicer is also implicated for murders in Northern Ireland in the 1990s. Aegis is also tied to the sponsoring of an aborted coup in the West African nation of Equatorial Guinea, which resulted in the arrest of Sir Mark Thatcher, son of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
How did Aegis conclude that the foreign origin for the bomb maker, when no such evidence was available? What role does this British security firm serve in helping drive Washington-London "war on terrorism" planning, and what was this confidential report "seen and read by Pentagon officials"?
Britain and "Terrorism"
British terrorism goes back to the days of the old British Empire, and since the 1970s, includes the creation and running of "Islamic terror" groups all over the world, right alongside US and US-backed intelligence counterparts playing the same game. These connections persist to this day.
It is a matter of documented fact, exposed by Michel Chossudovsky (War and Globalisation) and others, that mujahadeen mercenaries and "Islamic jihad" from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited and trained by Britain’s MI6 and British SAS Special Forces, to fight in the ranks of the KLA, supporting NATO’s war effort.
In Crossing The Rubicon, Mike Ruppert noted:
"Great Britain-one of the major players supporting the KLA in Kosovo-also maintained secret relationships with bin Laden and al Qaeda that served its interests. In 1996, Britain’s exterior intelligence, MI6, actually funded and worked with al Qaeda in a plot to assassinate and overthrow Libya’s Muammar Qaddafy. Details of the relationship emerged after a British domestic intelligence (MI5) officer, David Shayler, went public with documents detailing the relationship between Britain and bin Laden.
"In November 2002-in the wake of 9/11-as Shayler’s trial brought the case to public attention, the British government invoked measures of the State Security Act to hide embarrassing information. The government’s efforts went so far as to the issuance of a "D" notice by Prime Minister Tony Blair requiring that previously published news stories on the case be withdrawn and removed from public websites . . .
"Britain’s dealings with Osama bin Laden have extended to allowing him to visit their country while he was a wanted man. As noted in 1998, ’the French Internet publication Indigo reported that bin Laden had been a London guest of British Intelligence as recently as 1996, and his treasurer recently defected to the Saudis as different factions shifted alliances for new campaigns in the Middle East.’"
The Real Enemy
Nothing has changed since 9/11. As long as Bush-Blair-Sharon dictate the course of events, nothing will.
Where no connection to "Al-Qaeda" or "Islamic fanaticism" actually exists, in a way that justifies endless "war on terrorism," it will be created. Factual truth in this post-9/11 milieu is, to borrow the corrupt Alberto Gonzales’ words, a "quaint notion," in a time of open government criminality and rampant deception.
There is debate about the possibility that London had elements of "real" terrorism, "blowback" or "payback" (see "The Global Battlefield: We Are Standing On It"), or perhaps that it was some combination of "made to happen" and "allowed to happen."
Five continuous years of a "war on terrorism" past the point of no return, have left the line between fabricated (intelligence agency-orchestrated) terrorism and "real" terrorism (a response to the provocations and policies) irrevocably blurred. In any case, this discussion is academic.
The "root cause" of modern terrorism is the criminal geostrategy of Washington, London and Tel Aviv. The New World Order welcomes chaos and disorder-regardless of the particulars of any particular event. That fact is all that matters, as this war continues to devastate humankind.
Forum posts
19 July 2005, 13:01
Don’t forget that it has been reported that the "bombers" also bought return tickets, showing that they intended to return home. I believe that they didn’t know that they were carrying real bombs. They probably thought they were part of a security exercise, and were carrying dummies. Thus they would have been victims just as much as the others who died in the explosions.
19 July 2005, 13:40
Ok Ok, lets say it’s a conspiracy. It’s a lovely feeling to be part of that exclusive club that knows what REALLY happened isn’t it. Makes me feel all important. For Fucks sake, grow up.
Not very clever though is it for the conspirators. Blairs popularity plummets and Italy sets a date to withdraw troops from Iraq because they know they’re next on the list, as they sided with Bush as well as Spain and the UK.
Get a grip, it was Pakistani young men angry about Iraq and Blairs support for US and Israel.
End of.
19 July 2005, 15:13
" it was Pakistani young men angry about Iraq and Blairs support for US and Israel"
I thought it was al-qaeda? so they bombed a predominantly muslim neighborhood? and the working class?
"it’s because dem darn terrorizers are radical muslims, the crazy types ya know"
yeah, the crazy types that illegally invade countries with fabricated evidence
Hitler always talked about the crazy types too, the communist and liberal terrorists(the jews came after), that wanted to take away the german way of life. He urged citizens to report people who spoke out against the war, because they were no better then the enemy.
no wonder the terrorists keep bombing us, they want us to invade Iran.
nothing to see here citizen, continue shopping
21 July 2005, 19:16
I think your observation ties in perfectly with the ’security’ exercise that occurred that day. It is well known that undercover operatives use ’patsies’ to take the fall and they fail to link back when they are killed in the act.
19 July 2005, 15:29
Please back up your argument about the "Pakistani young men angry.... "you’re being a little vague. I’m a homemaker with two children who need a future and I need to know what’s going on and if there’s anything I can do to help make the world better for the future, because so far we have been swallowing deception, corruption and pure evil. I certainly don’t enjoy waking up to this but I appreciate those who take the time and energy to do serious research and help us all face what may very well be happening. It’s not a lovely feeling and it’s not about being part of an exclusive club that knows what really happened. It’s not about feeling important. Please stop smearing. If you are opposed to what folks write, here, please back it up with something more than insults. We just need to discern truths from lies and spread the word. We have been pumped up with terror and xenophobia for almost five years straight. Enough.
19 July 2005, 17:05
Empathise with how you feel. I have two young children as well. I also work with a nice Pakistani man and have met his friends. You know how males are supposed to think about sex several times an hour or day ? Well Muslims in this country think about the injustices to Muslims in occupied Palestine, in Kashmir, in Chechnya , Afghanistan and the daily slaughter in Iraq constantly. They feel an attack on a muslim is an attack on them.
Now, not all would consider becoming martyrs to their pain, they react in different ways.
Al Quaeda does not exist as an organisation-it is a Western fabrication. However, the loose network of ideas is perpetuated from what Western governments have done in the Middle East.
The only way in the future to feel safe is for our troops to pull out.
Blair argues that 9/11 was before the West invaded Iraq, hoping we’ll believe his stance. The first Gulf war was 1991 and between then and the second occupation and slaughter, 500 000 iraqi muslim children died due to US sponsored sanctions. This, and other ’incidents’ like when US jets bombed fifty Afghanis at a wedding and didn’t even apologise, tends to really piss off Muslims in the UK. And quite understandably.
I just wish someone would tell Blair...or is he aware ?
20 July 2005, 07:37
I note a considerable looseness of thinking in the way people flop back and forth between attributing terrorism to Islam, claiming it to be a religion that endorses atrocity, and attributing it to people upset about territorial issues which target people who happen mostly to be muslims. I recognise the greater sophistication with which Xtian theorists have distorted the teachings of the mystics claimed as their founders, which is perhaps how they managed to camouflage better their atrocities. If by their fruits ye shall know them, one must recognise that far more strange fruit has appeared on Xtian trees than muslim over the last few hundred years. Muslim fundamentalism is as much a danger to the cultures in which it is propagated as Xtian fundamentalism is to America
the only place where large numbers of people are easily persuaded of the righteousness of hi-tech genocide , but until it was adopted as an instrument of destabilisation by the NWO see the origins of the Taliban it was not a particularly serious threat to humanity at large or to other countries that left it alone.
It is almost as simple as this - the Anglo-American elite has done everything it could to provoke and demonise the people who inhabit the lands where the resources they covet are located. If Islam is making the classic error of a religion endorsing a political perspective, at least it is drawing its broad-base support from the natural spirit of self-defense that an invaded and threatened populace must be expected to show.
If several generations from now our descendants are able to look back on the age of the global corporate cancer from a world in which that mostrosity has been expunged, they will perhaps see the muslims of the early 21st century as having, in a manner not as gentlemanly as might
have been desired, been among the first to take up arms against a menace to life on this earth that would have been brought down long before, had humans been more prescient.
It obscures the reality to describe the growing willingness among muslims to kill and be killed as an impulse deriving from their religion, even if the mullahs endorse it. It arises from their desire
to do something for their People, not for their Religion. In contrast, it’s hard to imagine many of the armed youngsters in American and British uniforms as being impelled by any such deepseated motives, or seriously believing that their cause is just or noble, however reflexively they may mouth the cliches of televidiotic patriotism. Their ultimate defeat is implicit in the fact that they are coming to realise what immoral masters they are serving, and must choose between shame and
denial...
19 July 2005, 20:23
Who wrote this shit?
19 July 2005, 23:52
What do you mean? Please, if you call things "shit" you need to explain clearly why that is so, possibly without being vague.
20 July 2005, 10:01
I think he means: "I don’t agree with you, but I’m not articulate enough to formulate an answer."
20 July 2005, 11:56
but you know what will really get "shit" mad? (hopefully at the right people for deceiving him/her)
The truth hurts: Coulter and Horowitz both Fabian Socialists
David Horowitz and Ann Coulter There is a "Third Kind" living amongst us in this Republic. This "Third Kind" comes in a political package disguising themselves as Republicans, or World Conservatives of the International Democrat Union and Democrats, or World Liberals of The Third Way.
The "Third Kind" wants to establish a self-regulating classless society on planet earth. I have had radio encounters with two Republican members of the "Third Kind," Ann Coulter (author of the best seller Slander) and David Horowitz (author of Empire and Revolution and How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas).
People such as Coulter and Horowitz do not want to talk about the very real existence of the "Third Kind" nor do they want you to know what is really taking place in this Republic and the world.
The "Third Kind" is actually the Radical Capitalist Class (RCC). The Radical Capitalist Class is a group of people that are trying desperately to spread a very specific American/British Capitalism based on Fabian Socialism to encompass the globe.
It is the belief of the RCC that this Capitalism if left unopposed will naturally evolve into a Socialism that will pave the way for Communism.
The RCC uses a continuous process known as Permanent Revolution (War, Revolution and Terrorism) to remove all impediments (national sovereignty) for the necessary establishment of Free Trade in order to create a global Free Market System (Economic Democracy), catalyst for Socialism.
The ideas of this "Third Kind" are alien to the American people. Here are a few facts to ponder:
In 1983, former Trilateral Commission (a Fabian Society Front group) members, George Bush Sr. and Margaret Thatcher, founded an organization called the International Democratic Union (IDU).
The IDU views itself as an organization of World Conservatives dedicated to establishing a Free Market System and a "compassionate conservatism." There are 70 member parties from around the world to include the Republican Party...
At the gatherings of the IDU the members set around and plot strategy "to win the political argument" and "planning winning election strategies" for World Conservatism.
Every four years the IDU holds a major meeting to coincide with the Republican National Convention in the same city, at the same time and with the Republican National Committee.
Recently (June 10, 2002) George W. Bush hosted an election strategy meeting of the IDU in the White House at which the President announced to the world of this nation’s right to carry out pre-emptive military strikes (translated, raw aggression) against Terrorists wherever they may be. The IDU gave overwhelming support to this policy.
All these facts came from a 1979 Trilateral Commission membership list, the June 11, 2002 Toledo Blade, the May 8, 2002 Wall St. Journal and www.IDU.org.
Yet, when the current and leading political cheerleaders of the Republican Party, namely Coulter and Horowitz, were confronted with the IDU’s existence, they chanted "conspiracy theory" and pleaded ignorance, despite saying more than they should have.
Now for the Radio Encounters of the Third Kind:
Anne Coulter, a bouncy and vivacious blonde, recently had been the darling on the major media talking head shows plugging her (at that time) recent best seller Slander in support of the Republican Party’s election strategy.
Various talk show hosts have billed her as one of America’s most intelligent women and an expert on the politics of the Republican Party. Coulter’s message is about how the terrible Liberal Democrats along with the Liberal biased Media slanders conservatives, especially conservatives of the Religious Right. Her biggest criticism of these "Socialist radicals" is the liberal accusing the conservative of ’not being cerebral.’
Ms. Coulter was interviewed on a July 19, 2002 Omaha, Nebraska AM radio talk show.
I had the opportunity to be a phone in guest. I wanted to know what kind of response Anne Coulter would give when confronted about the Republican Party’s membership in the IDU. In the first part of the interview Anne bemoaned the fact that the Religious Right is slandered by the Liberal biased Media for belief in a higher being and tax cuts.
Coulter also observed when media consumers have a choice they overwhelmingly choose conservative talk shows. One thing she did not explain is why the Liberal biased Media networks had her on their Liberal biased programs to speak kindly of conservatives.
Before I got to ask my very specific question she made the claim the Liberal biased Media is 100% Socialist.
The question: "I am a patriotic conservative. I am so glad you stated there is a liberal control of the press. My research shows in some way this is a two way street. These same liberals since 1983 have not said a word about the Republican Party’s membership of the International Democrat Union, that is promoting the same liberal agenda on a global basis and then passes it off as world conservatism. Can you enlighten me on that?"
The answer:
No, (emitting an uneasy laugh) I think that is your field of expertise. I don’t exactly know what you are talking about.
The next question:
"That is exactly what I run into. The rank and file Republican does not know the Republican Party is a member of a global Socialist organization. You have demonstrated in the first half of your interview that you are against this stuff and Gee, shouldn’t we know the Republican Party is promoting international Socialism?"
The answer: "I, I...I don’t think so—actually—um. I mean I never understood the idea, um, um this, this um, secret organization theory, what are they doing behind our backs? They take half our money. When Clinton was president he was gunning down religious fringe groups, shipping little boys back to Cuba and I, umm, ummm, (now with her voice raising) They take half our money, wetland designation tells us what we can not do with our land, what exactly do you think they are doing secretly, (voice really tense and still raising in tone) Good God Look what they are doing right in front of us!"
Next question:
"That is the point I am driving at! You can ask any chairman of a state Republican Party about the Republican Party membership in an international socialist organization."
Hurried response:
"We’re talking about something I—ummm—don’t think exists. We’ve kind of gone off the road here. Can I have another call?"
It was more than obvious Anne Coulter did not want to discuss the IDU.
There are only two possible reasons for this. One of course is she really did not know about the IDU. If this is the case then it is a stretch of the imagination to consider Ms. Coulter an expert on Republican politics. The second reason is obviously she did know about the IDU and wasn’t about to enter into a public discussion about the Republican Party’s membership in an international Socialist organization.
The plot thickens!
A few weeks later David Horowitz was on the same radio station (August 6, 2002). Horowitz’s interview was prefaced by one of the hosts describing how a previous interview was scheduled in advance but had to be cancelled at the last minute because Mr. Horowitz had been summoned to the George W. Bush Waco Texas ranch to talk election strategy. This was done to demonstrate the importance of his book How to Defeat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas. Would Mr. Horowitz’s response be similar to Ms. Coulter’s?
First question:
"Hello Mr. Horowitz, how are you?" Answer:
"Fine."
Second question:
"I was lucky enough to get an advanced uncorrected readers copy of How to Beat the Democrats. I do believe it is a book all Republicans should read. My question is: I understand the tactics you are trying to put across to the Republicans but, in lieu of the recent split between Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman, it seems there is a mad rush of Democrats going to the center, basically through the aegis of the Democratic Leadership Council which is also a member of an international organization called The Third Way. Consequently, at the same time I started reading articles a couple of months ago, one from the Wall Street Journal for May 8, something about an organization called the International Democrat Union made up of World Conservatives, then in the early part of June there was an IDU meeting at the White House that posed these World Conservatives were right of center."
Does the Republican membership of an international organization going to the right and vacating the center open the opportunity for the likes of Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, rated by the DLC as a moderate to capture the political center?
Horowitz: "Well look! You don’t want to be fooled by rhetoric or labels. How solid is Joe Lieberman’s conservative credentials, when it took him ten seconds to abandon all his principals to jump into the arms of Maxine Waters when he got that nomination."
[Author’s note: Mr. Horowitz cautions about being fooled by labels and rhetoric, because I assume they are misleading. Notice he did not acknowledge the existence of the IDU.]
"The Democratic Party is pulled to the left by the unions, the racist NAACP leftists, and the teacher-s union. All these people are hard left. It is a left wing party. It will remain left wing until it is beaten year after year."
[Author’s note: Horowitz then continues by painting the Democratic Party with a list of labels using his best conservative rhetoric, as urged in his book How to Beat the Democrats. Now pay close attention to the following comparison. Horowitz is still using labels and conservative rhetoric, see page 67 of How to Beat the Democrats.]
"If you look at John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, you will not find one scintilla of difference between them. Kennedy was a hawk on defense. He was a militant anti-communist. He was for capital gains tax cut and a balanced budget. And that should tell you how far to the left American politics has slid in the last 40 years."
[Author’s note: Yes, Horowitz is correct, don-t get fooled by labels or rhetoric. The key phrase from the above quotation is ’And that should tell you how far to the left American politics has slid to the left.’
Consider that for a moment. Horowitz has hinted the Republican Party has moved to the left right along with the Democrats!]
Question: Do you have any comments on the International Democrat Union?
Horowitz: The Democrats would say: ’well...I...you know. I don’t know, I don’t know what the International Democrat Union is . . . an international organization? The Third Way is a deception that we used to use when we were in the left to avoid the stigma of Communism without embracing the American way. And that to bear, Hillary Clinton is a Socialist. I don’t care what they say in front of the cameras. They understand where the American people are and they are out to fool them. And Republicans have to be vicious in their attacks on the Democrats and strike first or be on the defensive.
[Author’s note: Horowitz claims he doesn’t know what the IDU is or even if it is an international organization. He then proceeds to use labels and conservative rhetoric to lead away from talking about the IDU. Please also note Horowitz does recognize the existence of the Third Way.]
Question: It seems the Republican Party, being a member of the International Democrat Union according to their web site, they are determining election policies in their respective member parties in their respective countries?
[Author’s note: Pay close attention to the next response!]
Horowitz: Thats that’s (raising his voice) way too conspiratorial. (his voice, still raising in intensity) Look! Just imagine Al Gore was president when 911 Happened! If George Bush was not in there we would not have declared war on the al-Qaeda! We would have not taken the Taliban down! And there would have been tens of thousands more Dead Americans! That’s how I determine my politics! I don’t determine them by getting on the internet and finding some international organization!
[The Permanent Revolution is a continuous process of War, Revolution and Terror.] If you notice from the above quote Horowitz determines his politics by waging war and predicting future terror. And still Horowitz will not acknowledge or even address the existence of the IDU. Instead he yells conspiracy!]
Statement: But I found this information in the newspapers and the Wall Street Journal!
Horowitz (now very agitated): The United States is part of the UN. It’s a left wing organization. The US is in the UN, does that make the US left wing? The UN is always denouncing the United States, Britain and Israel. That’s their business these days.
[Authors note: Just a few minutes ago Horowitz acknowledged a severe 40 year leftward drift in American politics.]
Question and statement (with a slight chuckle): OK, I’m glad you brought that up! If the UN is a left wing organization, then why is the Republican Party pushing International Free Trade, which is a left wing policy? (my voice rising trying to be heard over the loud protestations of Horowitz), I can even back that up with Hamilton’s Essay #12 from The Federalist Papers.
Horowitz (successfully drowning out my efforts): Ah Look! I encounter people like you all the time. Politics is a complex business, OK? (speed of elocution picks up), You don’t get to be morally pure on everything! Just because the US doesn’t get out of the UN doesn’t make it a left wing party.
[Author’s note: I don’t wear brown-shirt khakis and I definitely do not have pictures of Hitler on my walls. And don’t forget Horowitz said there was no difference between Kennedy and Reagan. This is a good indication America just may be well left of the perceived American political center.]
Horowitz (quickly changing to an apologetic and condescending tone): I know I am on a religious station. Politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal! There is a big difference between politics and religion. Religion is about getting into heaven and if you mess with the Devil you’re damned. In politics& politics is about getting into office! You make pacts with the devil all the time putting together a majority coalition to allow you to rule!
End of interview.
Horowitz, just like Anne Coulter, denied knowing of the International Democratic Union, but did not hesitate to label something he didn’t know about a conspiracy theory.
Again there are only two possible reasons for this. One is Horowitz didn’t know of the IDU. But, how could a man, who had been summoned to George Bush’s presence, to discuss electoral strategy (a man claiming to have authored the Republican manual for election strategy) have not known about the June 10th, 2002 White House hosting of an IDU election strategy session that was covered by the Associated Press?
Something is grossly wrong here. Which leads to the second reason. Horowitz does know about the IDU and does not want the rank and file Republican to know about it.
There may be a reason for Mr. Horowitz’s ignorance of the IDU. Horowitz does know about the Permanent Revolution. This he cannot deny.
There is a section of How to Defeat the Democrats dedicated to The Unrepentant Left. In Chapter 4, on page 199, Horowitz vents his anger at a member of the radical left. It goes like this:
"Far from renouncing her communist and terrorist past, Boudin is part of the same radical network that fuels Linda Evans’ seditious projects and remains an integeral part of the permanent revolution both signed onto in the 1960s."
The use of the term ’permanent revolution,’ was not some idle choice of vitriolic rhetoric to demean the radical left. Horowitz knew exactly what he was writing. One only has to turn to his 1969 epic Empire and Revolution. A series of footnotes at the bottom of pages 28, 29 and 30 reveals the alter ego of Horowitz.
"Lenin referred to ’uninterrupted’ or ’continuous’ revolution rather than ’permanent revolution,’ which had been revived as a term by Parvus and Trotsky." (p. 28.)
"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society." (p.29.)
"Capitalist production according to Marx and Engels had centralized population and industry and concentrated property in a few hands. The ’necessary consequence’ of this was political centralization.
Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff." (p. 30.)
David Horowitz knows of the existence of the Permanent Revolution. Like any other conflict of man there are at least two sides in the struggle.
In the case of the Permanent Revolution the combatants have been Worker Socialists (The Third Way) and Corporate Socialists (today’s International Democrat Union). In his youth Horowitz was very active and a leader of The Third Way. In his maturity Horowitz deserted his Worker Socialist brothers in Permanent Revolution and switched sides to the Corporate Socialist cause, now his new brothers in Permanent Revolution.
Like his days in The Third Way, to couch his communism and shun his allegiance to America, Horowitz now hides his communism behind a conservative cloak of new found Americanism in the form of World Conservatism.
But for some reason Horowitz, The Republican National Committee and the Republican Party do not want the rank and file members of the party to know the concept of compassionate conservatism comes from the International Democrat Union, just another Fabian Socialist front group helping to transform Capitalism into Communism.
Just a few last comments. Please consider all the things Horowitz did say. He compared the perceived conservative Ronald Reagan to a 1960s very liberal Democrat and graduate of the Fabian Socialist London School of Economics, John F. Kennedy. Horowitz acknowledged a severe leftward drift in American politics. And most damning of all, in order for the Republican "Third Kind" to rule (not get elected) they must consistently "make pacts with the Devil."
These "Third Kind" ideas are most definitely alien to Christian, Patriotic, Conservative Americans.
It is time for the people of this Republic to acknowledge the Republican Party is just another Communist front organization of the Permanent Revolution — the dialectical evolution of Capitalism into Communism.
http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1533
20 July 2005, 12:17
Anyway, back to the original posting...the London Plot thickens.
No. it doesn’t. It only thickens with deluded people. The sooner people stop looking for their unique theory, the more energy can be put in to stopping more atrocities by putting pressure on our governments to bring the troops back.
21 July 2005, 04:14
Corporations are the bad guys you say! Well lets take a look if we should keep them around or give them the boot.
The computer you are using to type and post your messages on all came from corporations. The internet service provider you use to get your messages up to post is also a corporation. The chair and desk you sit at, the lamp, the room your in, and the building and or house you are in all were provided or built by corporations. Even the paper you use when on the toilet. Even the toilet. And so it goes.
Corporations provide services and most do it very well. They have to or they go out of business. Corporations allow competition. The competition continual improves the products. The bar of excellance is raising all the time. And the big plus is it creates a lower overall price for us as consumers.
Corporations employ billions of people and their families all over the world everyday. They purchase their parts and or products or services and make or enhance the product for the consumer market. In fact corporations are credited with every advancement know to man including the sciences. Now, if you want socialist state where the government makes and sells everything for you, please tell me in what socialist county (at any time in history) can you use as an example that has benefited man more then the corporations?
Get a job, or start your own corporation and take all the chances with your money that every corporation has had to risk. Get in the competitive game. Or is that a bit too scary for you? Grow up
21 July 2005, 07:44
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Hey assholes try to stay on message, try to focus, go take some Ritilan, or better yet just go away.
23 July 2005, 08:59
in case you haven’t figured it out, this is the conspiracy channel. the reality check channel is down the hall. if you have a conspiracy theory you are currently whipping up then you may proceed without caution. however, please be advised that any and all optimism, constructive criticism, patriotic tendencies or other displays of faith in western culture or leadership will be deemed inappropriate thinking. the offender will be severly "blah, blah, blahed" by a senior theorist.
Dave
21 July 2005, 09:42
Thanks,
My question is this: if the cameras at the tube where the "bombers" entered captured photos of the four men, then how could one of them have left—at virtually any point—without having been photographed?
In addition, sticking with surveillance filming, London is known for the large number of surveillance cameras in the city at large. It is curious, therefore, to learn that there are (were) no pictorial accounts of the individual taki ng the bus, and/or the progress of the individuals after they entered the platforms.
Heathen
22 July 2005, 05:06
Well the Patriot Act was just renewed even with the provisions that the government can spy on you and your family for any reason. So I guess the London bombings were effective.