OWG | Agenda 21 and Diet

22 10 2010

James Delingpole is oh so more eloquent than myself in the writings of rage, that I shall direct you to his piece in the Telegraph regarding the ideas thrown around about our collective, and that word is important, diets.  I won’t cut and paste it all but just highlight the third from bottom paragraph and one phrase in particular.

‘Let them eat vegetables’ says the Eton Grocer’s eco-fascist quango

Apart from being riddled with false assumptions – the main ones, of course, being that “Greenhouse Gases” need to be controlled in the first place; that their effect on “Climate Change” is anything to worry about; that any of this is any business of the Food Standards Agency anybloodyway – the document is really just a means of further advancing the cause of the Quangocracy, Big Government and the UN’s Agenda 21.

Now, just what is the UN’s Agenda 21?  Well, according to the following video, just another step towards One World Governance resulting in property rights suspended, collectivism imposed, and just a general corporatisation of the entire globe under one roof.  One glove fits all.  Or possibly one iron gauntlet to keep all in check.

The official plan can be read HERE, yet unsurprisingly, once more the authors deliberately skirt around the written bush, using all sorts of soundbites that no sane human could reject, yet what one says they are going to do and what they actually do, are two very different things.

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations.

(source)

Redistribution of wealth which of course will be handled by a respected banker who of course wouldn’t dream of skimming some of the top…  whose ever heard of an untrustworthy public servent 1US??? 2UN??? 3UK???

2.4. Governments recognize that there is a new global effort to relate the elements of the international economic system and mankind’s need for a safe and stable natural environment. Therefore, it is the intent of Governments that consensus-building at the intersection of the environmental and trade and development areas will be ongoing in existing international forums, as well as in the domestic policy of each country.

(source)

Consensus-building usually means “We’re right, you’re wrong and if you step outta line, we’ll smack you one“, or worse, ‘blow you up‘ as if the below was an innocent mistake.  (warning, those with a nervous disposition should not view this as this is uncensored)

I could go on but it’s best if you skim through the whole thing yourself, and I say skim otherwise it’s like reading any governmental release, mind-numbingly protracted bullcrap that actually has the ability to make you vomit.  When something looks too good  to be true, it is usually bullcrap.  And after all them years finessing this art, the political masters and their puppets in the world do a splendid job of smoke and mirrors and top of the range bullcrap.

Even the best intentions can have the worst consequences.  And every time I hear the UN and various whores mention sustainability, I can’t help but picture euthanasia on tap.  Remember our business partners in the Chinese government’s approach towards over-population.  No problem with murdering an unborn soul to sustain their economy.  How long before the UN adopts this stance as a way to save the planet?  And why, in the age of equality restrict this barbaric and sadistic measure to those conceived yet not received?  Why not the over 50s?  Or the unemployed?  Or the disabled?  Or those on low incomes?  Or anyone else that doesn’t tag along?

Just like UN Peacekeepers raping their way across Africa to the dodgy dealings with Saddam and the Oil for Food programs, I wouldn’t trust this bunch of despots with my shed.  Bet the UN is just one giant horse-trading show in which each representative tries to outdo the others in vying for the UN’s cushy jobs. Oh yeah, we’re the horses.  And oh yeah, the Owners of this planet appoint the cushy jobs;  for economic power can buy political power, ad infinitum.

The root of all evil is the love of money…  money buys many things, yet most sought, is good old-fashioned control.  And it doesn’t matter how well-off you think you are, compared to Earth PLC’s stockholders, you’ve got sweet FA.

All’s fair in love and war.

Advertisements




BP | Disaster and money

24 06 2010

Excellent video from AlienScientist regarding the money-men and their corrupt practices to ensure the status quo.  Of course, this is done at the expense of every living thing on the planet but hey, that’s progress for them.

What I’ve always found odd is the idiocy of taking trillions of barrels of oil out of Earth’s crevices without considering why it was there in the first place.  Surely there is a reason why so much grease is under our feet.  Perhaps the planet’s tectonic plates need that grease more than our own mechanical engines.

With so many crooks in charge, we never stood a chance.





Camberwell and Peckham | PPC Jill Guevara

28 04 2010

Just for fun I thought I’d check out the Leftarded Armies of Doom hoping to capitalize on all those African commies and illegals residing in Peckham. Most of these Red Groups seek the destruction of borders and total North Korean-style socialism installed across the world.

Oddly, I share one sentiment with this Workers’ Saint and that is her hatred directed at Harperson.  Apart from that, I could never support an organisaton that sought to destroy my ancestral homeland.  Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

This post will shine enough light on the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty candidate to put me off.  Problem is, the promise of a guaranteed State financed job will be tempting to those with the voodoo village mentality.  Quite cool what you can dig up on facebook.

There are now less than two weeks to go until the General Election. Use that time positively by helping our socialist election campaign!

Jill Mountford, council worker, revolutionary socialist, feminist, class-struggle militant will be standing in the south London constituency of Camberwell and Peckham against New Labour minister and deputy leader Harriet Harman. Harman is a chemically pure Blairite apparatchik personally responsible for many of the government’s attacks on the working class (eg cutting single parent benefit, blocking abortion rights in Northern Ireland).

We have been building a socialist campaign in Camberwell and Peckham for about a year. Between now and the general election we will be stepping it up.

If you want to do something positive in this election, come and help us! Donate at least a couple of hours in the next two weeks to leafleting, canvassing and other ways of supporting Jill Mountford’s campaign.

The struggle goes on and I mean literally after reading these policies that have no chance in hell of working…

For a working-class voice in Parliament! For a workers’ MP on a worker’s wage!

In the next general election, socialist activist Jill Mountford will be standing against New Labour deputy leader and cabinet minister Harriet Harman in the south east London constituency of Camberwell and Peckham.

More than ever in the midst of wage cuts, job losses and repossessions, working-class people need MPs who will represent us and help us fight for their interests – not four or five more years of New Labour careerists serving the bosses and the rich in a way almost indistinguishable from the Tories.

Despite her claims to be a “democratic socialist” and “feminist”, Harman is a government loyalist with a truly appalling voting record.

In 1998, as Secretary of State for Social Security, she oversaw New Labour’s cut in single parent benefit, throwing thousands upon thousands of single parents deeper into poverty. She has not rebelled against the Government once, voting for student tuition fees, privatisation in the NHS and schools, the Iraq war and all the rest.

In 2008, this self-styled fighter for women’s rights oversaw the government’s use of Parliamentary procedures to prevent MPs from even voting on an amendment to extend abortion rights to women in Northern Ireland.

Harman’s combined salary is more than £100,000 a year. Perhaps unsurprisingly, she recently proposed to exempt MPs’ expenses from the Freedom of Information Act.

Jill Mountford has lived in south east London and worked as a community worker for almost twenty years. She has been active in the labour movement all that time. She was national organiser of the Welfare State Network, set up in the 1990s to demand that Labour rebuild public services and the welfare state, and is now an activist in the public sector union Unison.

Jill is a socialist and a feminist, and a member of the socialist group Workers’ Liberty. She is running in this election to rebuild political representation for working-class people; if elected, she will take only the average worker’s wage and donate the rest to labour movement and community campaigns.

She is standing to oppose the bosses’ attempts to make us pay for their economic crisis, supporting workers’ and working-class community struggles; to demand decent jobs, homes and public services for all; and to fight for a workers’ government, a government based on and accountable to the workers’ movement that serves the working class as the Tories and New Labour in office have served the bosses and the rich. She wants to see capitalism replaced with a socialist society run in the interests of people, not profit.

Now for her admirable yet mission impossible policies which will certainly appeal to large sections of voodoo people, especially as it has a global appeal with amnesty attached.  Blighty cannot even sort out Her own problems and Commie Red wants to rule the world.

Jill’s policies:

These are demands which the workers’ movement and left can fight for now, policies for working-class political representatives to put forward and a program for a workers’ government to put into practice.

(1) Jobs, homes and services for all

Create jobs for all by cutting work hours with no loss of pay, and creating millions of jobs in public services. Open the bosses’ books: nationalise companies which cut jobs, under workers’ control.

Stop and reverse cuts and privatisations. Restore the NHS. Nationalise the drug industry. No to Academies, a good local secular comprehensive school for every child. Free education from nursery to university.

Living student grants.

A crash programme of council house building and repairs.

(2) A decent income for all, attack poverty and inequality

No to wage cuts, for wages that rise at least in line with inflation. A minimum wage of two-thirds median male earnings (£9 an hour) without exceptions.

Shift the tax burden from workers to the rich and business, abolish tax for the least well off. Tax the rich!

Benefits should be enough to live on and rise in line with earnings or prices, whichever is higher. Oppose New Labour’s attacks on the unemployed, disabled and long-term sick.

For the right to retire at maximum 60 on a decent pension. Level up private sector pensions to the best public sector provision. Restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings now.

(3) Take over the banks

Nationalise all the banks and sack their bosses to create single, publicly-owned, democratically-controlled banking, pensions, and mortgage service.

(4) Workers’ rights

Scrap the Tory anti-union laws so workers can defend themselves. For legal rights to organise, to strike, to take solidarity action, and to picket. Full equal rights for part-time, temporary and agency workers. 100 percent support for workers’ struggles.

(5) Equality for all

Women’s rights: extend social provision instead of making cuts which put social burdens back on “caring” women. Trade union and political action for equal pay. Defend and extend abortion rights and provisions. For abortion on demand.

Fight homophobia and transphobia. For 100% legal equality for LGBT people.

Against fascism, racism and communalism. Unite workers – black and white; Muslim, Christian, all religions and none; migrant and British-born; “legal” and “illegal” – to fight for jobs, housing and services for all.

Fight for asylum and immigration rights – no one is illegal!

(6) Protect the environment

Achieve the necessary cuts in carbon emissions and create a million green jobs through a democratically-controlled programme of converting energy industries, transport, and housing.

For publicly-owned, expanded, integrated and free/cheap public transport. For massive public investment in renewable energy.

(7) International solidarity

British bosses are our enemies, workers in other countries are our allies. Unite with workers across Europe and the world; fight to level up wages, conditions, services and rights.

On the evidence, sending troops to Afghanistan does more harm than good; they should be withdrawn. Cut arms spending; scrap the Trident replacement.

(8) Fight for democracy

The expenses’ scandal shows that the democracy we have serves the bosses, not the working class. We need to fight for better, starting by putting all MPs on a worker’s wage, with properly-vetted expenses. Abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords.

Defend civil liberties and the right to protest. Measures to weaken the police as a bosses’ assault force, including local democratic accountability.

Still, this isn’t just a one-man band, for she has a group of canvassers who have merrily gotten feedback from the easily pleased public.

Daniel: I had a long conversation on a doorstep with a man who was a long-standing Labour voter who said he would never vote Labour again. He argued that the Labour Party had failed to support the working class and the poor.

He intended to vote Lib Dem. I am not sure if I persuaded him, but he was pro-union and he did not know the Lib Dems’ anti-union record in — for example — local government.

He bought a paper and maybe I will go back and have another discussion next week.

Edward: I had a discussion with a disabled woman who argued that increasing the minimum wage to £8.80 per hour (a demand displayed prominently on our election leaflets) would not benefit her directly, but the quality of care she received would improve if her carers were better paid.

We took a street cleaner leafletting with us — I am not sure he had ever done anything like this before. It was a good experience. We gave out several hundred leaflets outside Peckham mosque last Friday. We had lots of good discussions and sold seven copies of Solidarity.

Mark: It is now very easy to sell socialist newspapers, and noticeably easier on estates than in more middle class areas.

We have had small numbers of people at our public meetings, but the discussions that have taken place have been useful. There’s not much of a culture of attending meetings any more. But people do want to talk and we’ve had lots of debates and discussions on doorsteps.

A lot of working class people just simply don’t know how to engage. They feel disenfranchised because no mainstream political party articulates a view they share, and disgusted by politicians who they feel are rotten and corrupt.

It is sometimes hard to disagree. I had a long discussion with a woman worker who knew very well she was being exploited, but who couldn’t see the point of voting for a small socialist group (of course we won’t win the seat, or come anywhere near either) and thought her union was rubbish (it sounded as if it was).

I think part of the answer is to explain that the vote is not the main issue for us. What we’re doing is making socialist propaganda for the long-term. After the election, we’ll still be here. The more people we can convince now, organise now, the better we will be able to resist the cuts that are coming — no matter who wins.

Anita: I did a bit of canvassing this evening. I didn’t have a lot of time, so I only managed half a street — about 25 doorbells — and yet I found a man that reckons he’ll vote for any genuine socialist candidate.

It was interesting to hear what people thought. Most were undecided, though I think most of the indecision was about whether to bother voting at all. A few people said that whatever they did, they wouldn’t vote Tory.

I was struck again by what an excellent opportunity the election is to get into political conversations on the doorstep. Not everyone would spend time talking to me, but they were apologetic about that, they were generally very prepared to talk.

Overall, I think canvassing is really worthwhile doing, I think it’s actually part of the reason why standing in elections is a good thing for socialists to do.

Cath said she’d enjoyed canvassing during the campaign.

“I found it quite scary at first. People have such very different ways of expressing themselves, and so many different angles on the same important questions. To be able to reply coherently, and to break down some big ideas in to understandable chunks is a difficult skill.

“People can be quite eclectic too. People can acknowledge the need for workers to stick together, and still complain about work-shy single mums ‘getting flats easily’ or Eastern Europeans ‘robbing benefits’.

“A lot of the myths in circulation are simply that: myths. Eastern European migrants mostly can’t claim benefits, and no-one gets council flats easily — single mums, or anyone else. There are very few council flats! There’s a waiting list of many thousands!”

It is simply a matter of mathematics and common sense, something that seems to have gone walkies in Britain.  For the simple-minded, Britain’s landmass is small, world’s population is enormous, we cannot fit gallons of water in a litre and half bottle!  And encouraging immigrants to vote for the  destruction of Britain is criminal and insane.  We cannot trust our own politicians yet Socialists want to create more!

Isn’t Britain as the unique nation with a history and culture to match worth defending?  Is it really worth gambling the future of Her peoples for a fantasy world utopian ideal that would only end up serving the Political Class?  For the day we rid ourselves of Private Ownership is the day we become nothing more than property of the State.

Vote Jill, get the WHOLE DAMN WORLD!





Earth Plc | Institutionalised corruption

18 04 2010

We know our Parliament is corrupt.  We know the Courts are too.  The Police most probably.  The Press most definitely.  Council Officials of course.  Church and religious leaders fare  no better.  Every orifice of a public (or major private) office seems to be oozing with corruption.

And with Chatham House rules in place, those with their paws on the gears of progress can hammer out all sorts of nefarious plans away from the gaze of their intended victims.

We know what is wrong with the system.  It is the lack of Quality Control shown by our protectors.  Instead of working for the Nation, the Bastards that Be pass Laws to which they know little about, usually at the bequest of the Law Society or the European Council, and even less inclination to challenge them.

A point of interest, check out the UK Statutes and Acts and see if you can understand some of them.  May have well have been written in Japanese with the amount of legalese used, no wonder it takes so long to become a lawyer.

So how do we fix such a problem?  Well, firstly, we all need to oversee Our Democracy from now on.  Every vote, every ballot needs to be seen by us.  Labour should have been wiped out of the European elections, something doesn’t fit.

If we can do that, once election time comes, we’ll get the correct result, and hopefully Britain will have come to its senses and voted the entire Establishment out.  A goalpost is preferable to anyone NuGov puts up.  If we can destroy the Big Three, we may have a chance of redemption.

Only then could we leave the Neo-Fascist European Empire.  Only then could we instigate a real investigation on what the Establishment have been doing in our name.  Only then could we have laws repealed and amended.  Only then could we remove all undesirables from society fairly, equally and above all, using common sense and rope if necessary.

So long as the Establishment remains, so will the degenerates that infest it.

We have the Right of Reply at the Ballot Box.  Let  us shout out the Corruptibles before they not only have Gold-Plated Pensions, but Vote-Proof Positions.





‘Flash’ Gordon | Not to be outdone

17 04 2010

Mr Brown must have read about PR Dave’s address to the Jewish contingent and so thought he better announce his own Big World Society plan.  Or course, anyone taught to be sane knows that there is no New World Order conspiracy controlled by secret societies.

That would be silly, as if those with the ability to buy entire parliaments would even dream perverting nation’s governments for personal benefit.

Gordon Brown sets out vision for global society

Gordon Brown set out his vision for a global society during a speech at the Open University headquarters in Milton Keynes as part of his series of election lectures.

By Rebecca Lefort, Telegraph.  Published: 4:56PM BST 17 Apr 2010

The Prime Minister was speaking to academics, international development campaigners and supporters.

He said he had a vision of creating a global institution to help reconstruct countries where civil society was broken; a global environmental organisation to tackle climate change; and a global financial system which serves the people.

He also said he wanted to provide more support to international development agencies. “What people say is impossible and beyond our reach can happen,” he said. Mr Brown used images of World War II, the Holocaust, Apartheid in South Africa, Ethiopia, Rwanda, the Balkans and the Congo to illustrate what he said was a continuing progression of worldwide values towards a more compassionate and ‘global society’.

He spoke of his own experience of visiting a 12-year-old orphan in Africa, saying: “There was simply no hope in her eyes,” and of his pride that the Labour government had helped 40 million children in developing countries access education.

Mr Brown talked about the vision of former American President John F Kennedy whose enthusiasm and determination spurred his country to the moon. Last week Tory leader David Cameron also referenced the iconic JFK during the Conservative’s campaign.

Although the focus was on international development issues Mr Brown also spoke about domestic issues and said the leaders’ debate had established the ‘choices of the election’.

“I believe that your jobs, your NHS, your schools, your policing, these are what are on the ballot paper when it comes to the election a few weeks from now,” he added. He said the Conservatives had made ‘strategic mistakes’ by ‘putting the recovery at risk’ and failing to realise the importance of public services to the electorate.

“It looks very much like the same old Conservative party with new public relations but similar policies to the past,” he said.

Forget about Labour’s benevolence in educating 40,000,000 turd worlders, the use of emotive propaganda that has little to do with Labour or Britain and the blatant orphan prop.  Let me highlight the man’s vision:

‘A global environmental organisation to tackle climate change; and a global financial system which serves the people.’

So much for any pretence of democracy.  If the Establishment Political Media Complex felt the need to deny us a vote on the revamped Lisbon Treaty, our chances of having a say in this lies in the coming election.





War | Variations Worldwide

18 03 2010

A declaration of war was made against Man, Family, Home and Nation’ status worldwide long ago, with the Masters of the Universe seeking to install an authority higher than God Almighty.  One that excludes the many and consists of the few, where Earth PLC’s Faceless stockholders can decide the fate of the world away from the prying eyes of us mere tenants.

Order out of Chaos (and Confusion)

Democracy has run its course, will be the message and a new form of Government Representation will take Her place.  One where the Leaders are selected and nurtured into the ways of enlightenment, prepared to rise above such petty things as family, nation, culture, even genocide.

Not a conspiracy theory but fact.  The destruction of close-knit communities, kinship, even the sanctity of family with the most sinister tactics has been deliberate.  Wars, laws and misery with no more effort than a pen stroke.

the battle for ‘our’ hearts and minds has involved oppression and persecution from the very people who swear to protect us and is by no means a conventional war.  So scared of the possible repercussions for opposing the Faceless, the Parliamentarians  settle for the ‘funded’ life assisting the Devil in His work.

The various explanations of tactics are from Wikipedia so are not exhaustive but I have edited it and given my own recent or current examples, so this wasn’t no simple cut and paste job.

Power behind the throne

The phrase power behind the throne refers to a person or group that informally exercises the real power of an office.  In politics, it most commonly refers to a spouse, aide, or advisor of a political leader (often called a “figurehead”) who serves as de facto leader, setting policy through influence or manipulation.

Examples:  Most visible one to mention would be Lord Mandelson, the barely visible probably Nat Rothschild and the least visible, well, only the Devil knows that.

Shadow government

The term shadow government has two distinct uses with entirely different meanings. The first refers to a government-in-waiting composed of members of the opposition party in a parliamentary chamber such as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. In this example the Shadow Cabinet ‘opposes’ by means of dialectical debate and argument the government in power.

In its other use the phrase refers to what is sometimes called “the secret government” or “the invisible government” which postulates that contrary to popular belief, real and actual political power does not reside with publicly elected representatives (for example the United States Congress or the UK Cabinet) but with persons unknown to the general public who are exercising power behind the scenes.  In this sense the official elected government is in reality subservient to the shadow government who are the true executive power.

Examples:  The faceless and nameless Power-brokers of the International circuit.

Divide and rule

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures.

In modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites “Divide et impera” in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule.

Typical elements of this technique are said to involve:

  • creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to forestall alliances that could challenge the sovereign.
  • aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign.
  • fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers.
  • encouraging frivolous expenditures that leave little money for political and military ends.

The use of this strategy was imputed to administrators of vast empires, including the Roman and British, who were charged with playing one tribe against another to maintain control of their territories with a minimal number of imperial forces. The concept of “Divide and Rule” gained prominence when India was a part of the British Empire, but was also used to account for the strategy used by the Romans to take Britain, and for the Anglo-Normans to take Ireland. It is said that the British used the strategy to gain control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, taking control of petty princely states in India piecemeal.

Examples:  When the ‘working men and women’ got the vote, they had to be divided for the Establishment to maintain power.  Hence encouraging large political, cultural and religous differences and mass immigration.  And so long as Paul was paid enough, Peter could be robbed all day long.

Social conditioning

Social conditioning refers to the sociological phenomenological process of inheriting tradition and gradual cultural transmutation passed down through previous generations.  Manifestations of social conditioning are vast, but they are generally categorized as social patterns and social structures including education, entertainment, popular culture, and family life.  Social conditioning can be understood as representing the role of ‘Nurture’ in the Nature vs. Nurture debate, while the ‘Nature’ aspect is represented by the phenomena described by sociobiology.

Examples:  The entire education-media-political complex, controlling every aspect of our lives, be it through the threat of the law or the indirect prodding from the ‘in’ crowd.  If done right, the population will not even notice.  Climate Change State-sponsored guilt-trips.

Lawfare implications

Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare.  Lawfare is waged via the use of international law to attack an opponent on moral grounds, with an objective of winning a public relations victory.

Lawfare is one of several alternative war-making concepts outlined in the 1999 Chinese book Unrestricted Warfare, which is principally concerned with the new variety of offensive actions available to an international actor that cannot confront another power militarily.

Origin of the term

Perhaps the first use of the term “lawfare” was in a manuscript, Whither Goeth the Law – Humanity or Barbarity. The authors there argue the Western legal system has become overly contentious and utilitarian as compared to the more humanitarian, norm-based Eastern system.  They opine the search for truth has been replaced by “lawfare” in the courts.

A more frequently cited use of the term was coined by Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. in a 2001 essay he authored for Harvard’s Carr Center.  In that essay, Dunlap defines lawfare as “the use of law as a weapon of war.”  He later expanded on the definition, explaining lawfare was “the exploitation of real, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of law-of-war violations being employed as an unconventional means of confronting” a superior military power.

Examples:  The UK Government’s EHRC persecution of the British National Party.  The EU meddling with the internal democratic affairs of Switzerland.  The implementation of Laws Against the Nations ‘tackling’ Climate Change, Holucasut Denial Laws to stiffle internal debate and even the secret family courts which attack the family.

A look at asymmetric warfare

Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.

“Asymmetric warfare” can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other’s characteristic weaknesses.  Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the “weaker” combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.  Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized.  This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.

Examples:  The Race Relations Industry, blaming ‘percieved’ injustices due to discrimination, creating an atmosphere of fear and entitlement dependent on ‘group needs’.

The dreaded psych-ops

Modern psychological warfare operations

In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. troops used music, most commonly American heavy metal or rock music to confuse or scare insurgents.

However, most uses of the term psychological warfare refers to military methods, such as:

  • Distributing pamphlets, e.g. in the Gulf War, encouraging desertion or (in World War II) supplying instructions on how to surrender.
  • Propaganda radio stations, such as Lord Haw-Haw in World War II on the “Germany calling” station
  • Renaming cities and other places when captured, such as Ho Chi Minh City
  • Shock and awe military strategy
  • Projecting repetitive and annoying sounds and music for long periods at high volume towards groups under siege.
  • Use of loudspeaker systems to communicate with enemy soldiers.

Most of these techniques were developed during World War II or earlier, and have been used to some degree in every conflict since. Daniel Lerner was in the OSS (the predecessor to the US CIA) and in his book, attempts to analyze how effective the various strategies were.

He concludes that there is little evidence that any of them were dramatically successful, except perhaps surrender instructions over loudspeakers when victory was imminent. It should be noted, though, that measuring the success or failure of psychological warfare is very hard, as the conditions are very far from being a controlled experiment.

Lerner’s categories of psychological warfare

Lerner divides psychological warfare operations into three categories:

White [Omissions + Emphasis]

Truthful and not strongly biased, where the source of information is acknowledged.

Grey [Omissions + Emphasis + Racial/Ethnic/Religious Bias]

Largely truthful, containing no information that can be proven wrong; the source may or may not be hidden.

Black [Commissions of falsification]

Intended to deceive the enemy.

Examples:  The current game of political ping-pong between the World Powers over Iran.  The recent assassination that was allegedly carried out by MOSSAD, who will remain quiet even if it wasn’t them. In fact, any major geo-political event in the last hundred years.  And the biggest one of all, the never-ending ‘War on Terror’.

Like Tony Montana said, “..first you get the money, then you get the power..” And while all that economic power rests with the Corruptibles, those Bastards will continue unabated. Now all we need is a way to counter all that.  That though is for another day so will part with a wonderful question to ask ourselves from the mind of Aldous Huxley:

“How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man’s Final End?”






EU | Don’t insult your Rulers

3 03 2010

Nigel Farage has been fined £2,700 for insulting European President Herman Van Rompuy.  Okay, he did not get fined for the actual insult, it was due to him not apologising for his actions, thus admit all guilt.

This would make the EU in the right and Mr Farage wrong.  Behaviour common in Stalin’s Russia and a scary thought where this will lead to.  Another few years and those fines will be replaced with jail terms, and the remit for its use a lot further than those European Chambers.

Nigel Farage fined after Herman Van Rompuy slur

Ukip’s European leader Nigel Farage has been fined £2,700 after refusing to say sorry for a colourful outburst against the new European president.

I take my hat off to Mr Farage although he might not have the same idea of Nationhood as I do. I do appreciate it when a Europuppet has to hear some home-truths.  Sadly, always busy.

Wonder how much it would cost to call him the ‘Grinching Bastard Child of Beauracracy’?  Probably cost me more to translate in the forty odd approved languages than any forthcoming fine.  What a bitch to be poor.