It was the Neo-cons Bush and Blair era, following the illegal wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq. I had been an activist against the 2003 Iraq war and later against Blair. Before the 2005 G7 conference at Gleneagles, Scotland the Privy council passed a motion prohibiting criminal prosecution of G7 atendees. I was at the demonstrations against the G7 in Scotland. I believe that there were failed attempts to apprehend me by UK authorities on 6 July 2005. Then boss of the Metropolitan Police [17/2/22 ed: Ian Blair] was unashamedly extremely supportive of Tony Blair. Tony Bliar was extremely unpopular at the time. On the morning of July 7 2005, at the end of the G7 summit, there were explosions on the London underground and the made for television bus event. My analysis suggests that the tube explosions were dust explosions and that there were many previous but less serious dust explosions on the London underground. This leaves the bus explosion as fake manufactured terrorism. One country is particularly experienced at fake terrorism bus explosions. Then London mayor [ed: Ken Livingstone] sacked Robert 'Bob' Kiley following the publication of my the danger of dust explosions on the London underground article. London's Metropolitan Police followed the script provided by Efraim Halevi (sometimes spelled differently because it's a translation from Hebrew) in the Jerusalem Post on 7 July 2005. The explosion times were presented as simultaneous when they weren't. If the London explosions were dust explosions and the bus event was fake manufactured terrorism then there were no bombings or suicide bombers. 21 July 2005 there were copy-cat unsuccessful bombings on the London underground. 22 July 2005 Jean Charles de Menezes was murdered at Stockwell tube station. Ian Blair almost immediately stated that the Met Police assumed full responsibility for the death suggesting that it was not the Met that killed him. Official teams of foreign killers were operating in London following the London non-bombings. Many lies were promulgated by Met Police immediately after Jean Charles de Menezes murder. Untrue comments such as wearing a coat too warm for the weather, jumping barriers and the later "Houston, we have a problem" were crafted to relate to myself personally, to harass me, to make clear that I had been watched by UK authorities in depth for an extended period. One reason for murdering Jean Charles de Menezes was to support the suicide bombers narrative of & [ed: 7] July i.e. there are suicide bombers because, we're looking for them and killed someone by accident. I published an article demonstrating why Jean Charles de Menezes was selected to be killed on Bristol Indymedia on 27 June 2005 [ed: 28 Aug 2014] a few hours before the server was seized by British Transport Police. [ed: that doesn't seem correct][ed: Don't think that date is correct. Was the server seized 3 times - 2005, second time, 2014? The 2005 date is too early.] Current Met Police boss Cressida Dick was apparently in charge when Jean Charles de Menezes was murdered. My alternative narrative suggests instead that it was foreign agents that murdered de Menezes and that the official narrative was a fabrication. 13.03 This post republished at the original uri / url because it was getting cut & paste messed up [17/2/22 7 July 2005, 2 + 5 = 7 ]
A decade on I’m starting to feel very much like I did a decade ago – that the state is out to get me personally. Actually, it’s more than just a feeling. It’s the language used about Fascists (individual Fascists?) and Big Cons.
It all seems totally out of proportion as it was a decade ago. Hardly necessary or proportionate for name-calling a couple of Bully-boys and making a probably unfulfilled commitment to get up to speed. I said that I was trying to move on. The trouble is that it should by now be well appreciated that I do defend myself.
I can’t help thinking that perhaps this post would be better made tomorrow.
11.30 edit: I’m going to let this go for a short time to see if there’s confirmation or not.
20.35 edit: Having reviewed things I think that I was prob mistaken and that it’s not directed at myself. It’s taken me a long time to get a handle on Cameron and I think that it’s simply that he’s a big fan of Tonee’s for unknown reasons and – despite achieving good grades – he’s not that bright. For example the (Eton) mess that he made about censoring search engines and now he wants to ban alternative narratives (conspiracy theories) and start a Cameron Youth.
7 July 2005, the day of the London murders.
Central to understanding the London bombings is the bus at Tavistoc Sq. Why is there a Kingstar van in front of the bvs? What does that mean?
Blind old cnut Blunkett all of a sudden says “Human nature is you get carried away, so we have to protect ourselves from ourselves,” he said. “In government you are pressed by the security agencies. They come to you with very good information and they say ‘you need to do something’. So you do need the breath of scepticism, not cynicism, breathing on them. You need to be able to take a step back. If you don’t have this, you can find yourself being propelled in a particular direction.”
I suspect that this is about spying on mobile phone users: In fact I suspect that it’s about governments demanding the ability to spy on mobile phone users is designed into the systems. This was on big C cnut Blunkett’s watch after all …
[These demands from ‘law enforcement agencies’ are for every signal including location. Mobile phones signal their location continuously. Isn’t that a bug? … Blunkett, what do you have to say? You were home secretary after all … ]
[Later edit: Blunkett became Home Secretary in 2001. It should be recognised that mobile phones announce their location and much more.
[Later: It appears that there was no opposition by Blunkett to these demands from ‘law enforcement agencies’. Wasn’t there a scandal about this time about New Labour databases? – Escalibur was associated with Mandy and Labour coming into power but it was more than that – have to research this.]
Don’t look at this Mobile phones are designed to be mobile bugs
R.I.P. Jean Charles de Menezes murdered at Stockwell Tube Station 22 July 2005.
Jean Charles de Menezes was killed to send a message . The message was that another totally innocent person was to blame – somebody absolutely, completely not responsible – for the bombings. Ian Blair made many statements about how the murder of the innocent Brizzlian was so directly related to the ongoing terrorist investigation.
It is clear from the murder of Brizzlian Jean Charles de Menezes that there was absolutely no intention in pursuing those really responsible for the London bombings of 7 July, 2005.
I suggest that you look at all the shit Ian Blair did from the very start -libertines, cocaine. he was never a copper, always pursuing a different agenda
Frank ly it’s Jean Charles de Menezes
Later edit: The point about the murder of JCd was that it was a message of who should be targeted for responsibility for the July 7 explosions. Get it?
directly related to the ongoing terrorist investigation – all that shit …
7 October 2013
To clarify: Jean Charles de Menezes was killed 911 days after the introduction of the shoot-to-kill policy known as Operation Kratos. To clarify – I am saying 911 days after the introduction of Operation Kratos. If you do the math there is a difference of 912 days but it is still 911 days after. There is a similarity here that the event known as the Madrid Bombings or 3/11 occurred 911 days after the event known as 9/11 in New York. 911 is not a coincidence. It is the beginning of killing people under Operation Kratos.
I have shown that Jean Charles de Menezes’ name can be interpreted using Agrippa’s code. It produces a description that can be taken to indicate me and my location.
Jean Charles de Menezes was Brizzle-ian.
Ian Blair on the day described the police murder of Jean Charles de Menezes as directly linked to the ongoing terrorist investigation. JCd was deliberately murdered to send a message.
I was thinking of deciphering this article on Tor for my readers. While it’s an interesting article it’s quite difficult to follow even if you’re familiar with Tor.
There are a few interesting points like it’s never been possible to identify a tor user from a specific request and the way to go is to compromise (hack into) the user’s computer e.g. by luring them to a dodgy website. What the not possible to identify a user means is that it’s not been possible to go in reverse through tor from the e.g. website viewed. I was aware of government-funded sites that host malware – my previous blog was blacklisted with search engines because of comments with links (probably) to them.
Infection through a browser is a standard practice not necessarily involving the use of Tor. A possible attack vector would be to compromise (hack into) a cheap webhost and wait until the target webhost client connects to make a post. Cheap webhosts are not going to have good security: they’re cheap through cutting corners on everything. They’re certainly not going to be any match to government agencies.
Chances are that the software will not work straight away and the victim could notice some strange effects e.g. the keyboard not working properly until the spy software was tinkered with and tweaked. Somebody could very easily notice that their keyboard was playing up, especially when it returned to normal because that’s strange and unusual.
Anyway, in the prism and related documents that the article refers to there are many references to terrorists. It’s much easier to spy on perfectly law-abiding and respectable people if you first assign them to that category called suspected terrorist. I don’t like that label and I don’t like being spied on.
It seems to me that I may have to help to get rid of this label, so I’ll start by saying that it should be quite obvious that I have had an issue with alcohol. That’s a start. I’m likely to say far more which involves telling my story and also – by extension – involves identifying the real terrorists. They are former Home Secretaries, Prime Ministers and police chiefs. I am firmly of the opinion that there are very few real terrorists outside of government agencies because that is what my research and experience is telling me. Interested?
Edit: Can we have some relevant leaks please?
A repost from Deep DT’s reality cracking pages from 1998. Thinking about it, I’ve only just realised how deep this article is ~ I had no idea first time round. There are still copies of this article published and accessible.
Altruism* and charity
* – altruism, giving without any personal benefit.
In Britain, and quite possibly worldwide(?), students are actually taught at colleges and universities that altruism does not exist. It happened to me when I did my degree some time ago and it happened to a friend taking his degree last year. I think that it’s taught to new students before they are practiced at analysing an argument and before they are encouraged to have their own opinions and to argue with their lecturers. It is presented as accepted, objective fact without a real opportunity to disagree.
The argument goes like this. Social Psychology’s ‘reward theory’ states that for every act of giving, there is an equivalent ‘value’ received in return so there can never be altruism because the giver always receives something of equal value. Just search the net on altruism and I’m sure that you’ll see the argument. The trouble with the argument which seems lost on the academics is that it’s a totally ‘tautological’ or circular argument – you are within the argument – it can’t be disproved because of the way it’s stated. Now, if the argument was stated that altruism does exist, that there is never such a thing as an equal exchange – that could not ever be disproved either.
Let’s take an example. I’m on a crowded bus and I give up my seat to allow a pregnant woman to sit. Now according to ‘reward theory’, I didn’t do this because I am willing to help strangers when I’m able to and when it’s fairly easy to do so. No, I received from this ‘exchange’, good feelings for myself equal to the value of the effort expended. What nonsense, but the trouble is I’m within the argument which ASSUMES that a trade occurs and defines the reward in terms of that trade.
To disprove this theory, people are forced to find an example where there is obviously no reward for the ‘altruism’. The normal example is the anonymous kidney donor. Oh no, say the reward theorists, he receives a kidney’s-worth of good feelings. And any other example you think about, freeware, helping a blind person across the road, anything at all. The point is that the theory is based on the assumption that it’s innate for people to trade. It supports the dominant Capitalist ideology and states that you don’t and can’t do anything for nothing and that everything has it’s price.
Is there any hope for humanity if we teach and are taught that we cannot relate to each other than on this basis?. The implications are quite horrendous – that the concept of charity does not exist, that economic aid requires an economic return (which is often the case in practice) but I think the main point is that we are being taught to be fantastically selfish – worse than that – we are being taught that there is no other way except to be fantastically selfish, individualistic and self-centered.
By accepting this teaching we are transformed into individual consuming units. Individual consuming units are important because they mean greater demand for consumer products. However, they also mean loneliness, solitude and alienation from others. Can you really love someone on this basis? I think that it was Caesar who originally developed the theory of divide and conquer …
think about it
Some of you – a select few – will be aware that I have very recently made some good progress researching the events of London during the early reign of the Blairs – Tonee and Ian that is. I’m making progress on the unofficial narrative of events.
I want to get it correct and well documented so it will likely take some months. In the process, I’m also addressing the causes of some other issues like rambling nonsense postings and changing tack.
Well, I was sure that I posted this at about 11.30 a.m. yesterday. I hope that I haven’t upset the hackers again – hackers deleted some posts on my old site in December 2008. I suspected one of the groups LbrSec, MetPlci or GvnrMnt. Actually I think that my ISP at that time was ordered to take them down and not tell me anything about it – all quite possible with nasty UK laws like RIPA.
I did post this yesterday, didn’t I? I wonder if I derailed some plans they had for me. Maybe it’s to do with the evolving story of Jimmy Savile – latest revelations are abusing a 10 year-old boy at Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey and even supplying boys to a yachting former prime minister who was allegedly warned off cruising for men on Hampstead Heath. [edit: Jim’ll fix it) [further edit: There are also suggestions that Savile was a practicing necrophiliac (as well as Roman Catholic ;)) Yes, you’re always better informed by the web than corporate media (with very little digging;).
[14/10/12 The reference to a former prime minister above is rumour rather than revelation.]
Let’s try again then
I came across Jonathan King’s ComDoc – comedy documentary – ‘Vile Pervert The Musical’ while researching Savile. I’ve never been a fan of JK or his music but it is certainly tolerable in this context. It’s an hour and a half long but many shorter excerpts are available (try youtube).
Since the last UK politics news review the main issue is that the official narrative of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster has been proved to be totally fabricated. Feckin wake up will you? Terrrists that hate our freedoms brought down two skyscrapers, Suicide bombers in London, JCD was not murdered by Zionist scum? Come on.