Wednesday, 28 October 2015


George Osborne is said to be positively reeling in shock, to learn members of opposition parties actually have the balls to oppose him.

The House of Lords recently moved to block his open crusade against undesirable poor people, proving itself to have a purpose for the first time in a hundred years – when a quarter of today's House first started their careers.
“Who do they think they are? Lords or something? Half these people are riff-raff, yokels that real politicians owed favours to” - snarled the Chancellor, snapping the neck of a passing paraplegic.
Although the specific purpose of the House of Lords' ability to veto policies is to safeguard against oppression by a dictatorial government, leading Tories are adamant that the only answer to such belligerence is to be a dictatorial government.
“You wait and see. Dave just told the Scottish and Welsh assemblies to go f**k themselves, he'll tell those muppets too; ain't no biggie” - continued Darth Osborne.  
“We're going for the record on how many pre-election promises we can break before the year is out – we don't give a rat's arse what people think. We tell privileged people to go f**k themselves too: it's just easier when they're poor, and a lot more fun.”
Due to ongoing diplomatic seminars with his favoured mentor, Lord Sauron of Mordor, David Cameron was unavailable for comment. A Tory peer (preferring not to be named) brushed away the defeat though, stating:
“All the good'uns were on our side. We had that bird off The Apprentice, a multi-millionaire who sells carpets made from the bones of refugees, and Andrew Lloyd Webber – who flew in specially from an alternate dimension. A few more like them, and we'll have the public on our side. They're idiots after all.”
Should flooding the House with crazies and sycophants fail, the Chancellor has not ruled out burning down the House of Lords with all non-Tories still inside, citing it as the potential “Final Solution” - a phrase he's hopeful will catch on.

Wednesday, 14 October 2015


(Written shortly after the terror attacks in Paris)

Amidst all the horror, I have a very uncomfortable feeling gnawing away at me from
the pit of my stomach. I'm going to voice it, however much I probably shouldn't.

I really wish it wasn't there, but it is. And it struck me as soon I heard of events in
Paris, in the early hours on the 14th. Some would probably say I should be wearing a tinfoil
hat, and others might feel I'm somehow disrespecting the lives lost. I am not, and
anyone who thinks that doesn't know me at all.

The question I must unfortunately ask is, doesn't this all seem rather convenient?

I apologise for how offensive some might find use of that term, but can think of none more

To happen exactly when Europe is facing unprecedented migration, and our leaders
are desperately scrambling for an excuse to close the borders, but crucially, without
looking like in-humanitarian monsters?

To happen exactly when would-be totalitarian governments need it most? Just as
left-wing and alternative parties are gaining momentum? Just as the powers-that-be are
seeking to clamp down on our personal freedoms, impose further methods of control,
remove the "undesirables" from society, and perhaps more importantly, the electorate?
Just as they seek to legitimise continued wars and military operations in the Middle East,
fighting an enemy they created in the first place?

What our governments in fact needed more than anything was a catalyst to justify
continued policies of xenophobia. And by God they've got it now. Coincidence number

The rhetoric of a national leader at such a time speaks volumes, and history often
highlights this more astutely. Francois Hollande has already referred to these tragic events
repeatedly as a "declaration of war meriting a merciless response". Wouldn't a message of
peace have been a better example to all? From where I'm sitting, it's pretty clear what kind
of response it will be, and I doubt it will be good news for Muslim people anywhere - not
just in Syria.

Another detail troubling me is the military precision of the attacks, allegedly
committed by ISIS infiltrators with limited resources, yet they were somehow able to
bypass any response from vastly more advanced French security services. Again we're
supposed to just accept that Fred Flintstone can so easily outfox James Bond.
(Coincidence number two.)

As always there are discrepancies in accounts, all the perpetrators have been killed,
and the only alleged surviving conspirators captured were NOT actively involved in the
attacks. So yet again, no one survives to stand trial or offer any account that either
corroborates or disputes the official explanations provided. However, these soulless and
bloodthirsty killers WERE conscientious enough to bring along their passports, so we at
least know which countries to blame. It's odd how often terrorists provide the exact
evidence Western powers require to progress with their pre-dating, pre-conceived plans.
(Coincidence number three.)

There were similar discrepancies and details that didn't add up in the Charlie Hebdo
attacks earlier this year. In fact, the same is true of every notorious terrorist attack in the
past fifteen years, and whereas those who questioned 9/11 were once condemned as
"nutters", now it's widely accepted that the American government lied about many things.
It's just there's no one physically able to hold them to account, or to make them explain
why they lied.

One thing that's often telling to look into when these huge events and tragedies take
place, is what else is going on in the political spectrum that could potentially be being
distracted from. As well as similar attacks in Lebanon and Baghdad in recent days (which
haven't made headlines), it may also be interesting to note that France was due to host the
UN conference for climate change on November 30th: an event that was liable to attract
significant protest and disorder, and posed a big headache for our military/industrial
complex. Eg: the French government was already intent on closing the borders. Closing
them specifically to bar protest however, probably wouldn't poll as well. (Coincidence
number four?)

There is another beneficial side-effect from such tragedy for our governments.
People who were yesterday oppressed and pleading for a better standard of living will now
be terrified, paranoid, and pleading for simple things like more police on street corners.
Fear is undoubtedly the most useful tool that oppressive regimes have at their disposal,
and many citizens might now actively seek for their liberties to be further restricted.
(Coincidence number five: Theresa May will be so disappointed.) Just watch the news
headlines and the media in the next few weeks - they will ram this rejuvenated fear so far
down our throats, we won't be able to breathe without tasting it. As terrible as the Paris
attacks were, more Russian holidaymakers were killed in the alleged Sharm El-Sheikh
bombing of a civilian aircraft recently - but there was no outcry, no tears for innocent
Russian lives, there was no worldwide solidarity, and that's because it was not used by our
media in the same way. Why is that? Because it didn't serve a purpose. (Coincidence
number six.)

"The management of foreign relations appears to be the most susceptible of abuse, of all the trusts committed to a Government, because they can be concealed or disclosed, or disclosed in such parts and at such times as will best suit particular views; and because the body of the people are less capable of judging & are more under the influence of prejudices, on that branch of their affairs, than of any other. Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad." 
- James Madison, writing to Thomas Jefferson in 1798
I am no friend to religion, Islam least of all, but there are two guiding principles in
criminal investigation. Firstly, to acknowledge there is rarely such thing as coincidence, let
alone numerous coincidences piled on top of one another. Secondly, asking the question
"who benefits" will usually lead you to the perpetrators. I ask you, who benefited from this?
I don't really see how ISIS do. They might rejoice in our suffering and loss, but politically
they seem most concerned with overthrowing existing regions of the Middle East and
asserting their own dominion. Actively provoking the West in such a way doesn't aid them.
Instead it will undoubtedly invite a fresh can of whoop-ass and precipitate further military
strikes in the region (which have already started... coincidence number seven), and
probably signal their own destruction. That doesn't make much sense.

Of course, murderers and religious zealots aren't required to make much sense,
and the official explanation is plausible to a certain degree: otherwise there wouldn't be
much point presenting it in the first place. After all, not many people (other than those of us
with "tin-foil hats") generally bother to look more closely and/or question what the media
tells us, so perhaps the finer details simply don't matter?

I really wish I didn't feel the need to ask these questions, or sense something wrong
with this. I genuinely feel guilty they occur to me. I do not claim to know exactly what
happened here, and maybe I am suspecting "false-flag" operations and conspiracies
where there are none? It all seems quite far-fetched after all. However, there's the
problem. To completely deny false-flag operations and/or propaganda exist: to deny even
the possibility that supposedly "righteous" governments would use events and calamity to
their own advantage is (in my opinion) as naive and as stupid as anything we supposed
"conspiracy theorists" can ever be accused of. Such people should maybe open the odd
history book, or perhaps even read Orwell's "1984".

When Hitler told his people (and the world) that communist Jews were responsible
for a "terrorist attack" destroying the Reichstag in 1933, any suggestion he was actually
behind it would have been met with accusations of lunacy, utter contempt, and probably
state execution. Were the Germans collectively gullible and hateful, or were they
collectively manipulated and misinformed? The answer is clearly the latter, and I simply
cannot grasp why most people firmly believe that sort of thing COULD happen less than a
hundred years ago, but not possibly happen today. Particularly when methods of
propaganda and media manipulation are ten times more effectual and prevalent in the 21st
century. Do they honestly believe capitalism eradicated the propensity for evil? More than
ever before in our history, Western governments are in league with faceless banks and
corporate/financial interests, groups that have become unaccountable to our laws and
ethical expectations, and if that wasn't enough, the same groups are secretively seeking
new legislation that will in fact formally remove them from the jurisdiction and procedure of
civil and common law (TTIP). Are these the people we're supposed to trust?

If you're open-minded enough to get past the deliberate mental roadblocks, the next
question is obviously, which events ARE false-flag/propaganda then? By definition they are
designed to not appear so, and to make those who challenge their legitimacy look like
either far-left loonies, or heartless and disrespectful attention-seekers feeding off
controversy - people who like to be "different". It's a very effective form of
social/psychological repression, and it's specifically why I fear reprisal or derision for even
daring to pose these questions.

I understand why older generations and the mainstream "cogs" of our society are so
reluctant to even conceive of such notions. Particularly those who remember the World
Wars, or those whose parents/grandparents lived through them. The very idea that the
democracies they and their forefathers fought and died for could have been hijacked by
immoral corporate elites, and in the process become far more akin to a fascist propaganda
machine they sought to destroy - must be particularly loathsome.

Here's the thing though, belittling and shouting it down doesn't automatically make it
not so.

If I'm wrong, and I'm completely off my rocker, fine, no harm no foul. But if you've
taken the time to read this and it makes some sense, I put it to you to keep an open mind,
and do some research outside the mainstream media outlets. Look outside the
propaganda machine. Take emotion and humanitarian ethos out of it, and look simply at
the chain of events. Realise that the view looks very different when you're tipping the
dominoes, and not one of the little people living underneath them. They are so giant that
unless you peak around the edges, they will obscure everything else.

I truly despair for our world, and only hope something happens to change the
course we're on. Whether I'm (hopefully) barking up the wrong tree or not, we don't seem
to be headed anywhere good.

My thoughts are with the people of France, and the victims of this heinous tragedy.
And all the others too.