Conspiracy Theory Unofficial Narrative Fake Manufactured Terrorism The story of the London Bombings 7 July 2005 7/7 Jean Charles de Menezes Ian Blair Tony Blair

Spread the love

I’m not sure about this and I’d like some feedback.

THIS ARTICLE IS TO BE REPEATEDLY UPDATED AND AMENDED. While I have a lot, I don’t have the whole story so I would appreciate help with the uncertain parts. Thanks.

[23/11/13 One of the problems I encounter is that people helping don’t realise what I’ve already got. For example, I got the ’empty’ lead years ago when I was ignoring it as it was repeatedly raised.]

It’s a good day (to start).

Context, Terrorism, 2005 election, Inquiries Act, Bristol Indymedia, G8 & Privy Council ruling, Dust explosions, London Bombings, Cobra meeting for G8 not 7/7, Jerusalem Post articles, Ian Blair, murder of Jean Charles de Menezes

START:

Terrorism is a godsend for governments. It provides a wonderful excuse for dodgy newly-developed airplanes falling out of the sky when their doors open at 30 thousand feet and it provides a wonderful excuse for dust explosions on the London Underground. It provides a ready excuse for shitty old Jeeps with documented faults crashing off motorways and bursting into flames. It provides for massive made for television sacrificial rituals to start already planned wars.

7/1/14 The magick is working, I’m making fine progress – it’s almost as if it was hidden in plain sight all along. It was.

Just a tiny piece today. On 7/7/2005 – the day of explosions on the London underground and the strange bombing of a double-decker bus an hour later – the boss of the Metropolitan police Ian Blair said “The most important message though however is just that it, while it is a confused situation it must be a confused situation in multiple sites like this, a co-ordinated effort is slowly bringing order out of the chaos.”

There are two issues about this statement. Firstly try finding it using a search engine. It’s almost as if I made it up. I didn’t of course but the web has been scrubbed. That takes the sort of power that only governments have.

Secondly, what is meant by the phrase ‘order out of (the) chaos’ which is explained very well here

The need to deter democracy by alienating public opinion from public policy, is one that has been long understood. Back in 1921, the highly influential political columnist and media analyst Walter Lippmann, wrote the book “Public Opinion”,where he discussed the need for the “manufacture of consent”; given the inherent pitfalls and barriers to an accurate and effective public opinion (democracy, essentially), it is necessary that this opinion is crafted by a higher sphere of influence. This was understood very well by Edward Bernays, who was the founder of Public Relations (he indeed coined the term), and the formulator of not just corporate, but also political PR. He sketches out his views on this in his 1928 work, “Propaganda where he states that “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society”, suggesting like Lippmann, that democracy is a “chaos” that needs regulation from above. This “above” is a small section of elites: “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” These are the people who will ensure that the masses are sedated, and free to run their daily lives, without participating in the broader picture of public policy, given the dangers that this would pose to the influence of said elites, and thus the smooth functioning of society. To paraphrase Bernays, a leader must serve by leading, not lead by serving.   Read more: http://u2r2h.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/911-and-propaganda-model.html#ixzz2pkrbXafu

As explained in the quoted section above, bringing order out of chaos can be understood to be ‘manufacturing of consent’,  “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses …”

Well-educated people – better educated than myself – politicians and the like, people who … for whatever reason … have come to realise the meaning of the term would, er … recognise the term and know what it means. That there was a manipulation of events to manufacture consent going on.

8/1/14 Just for fun since we shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously, … he know’s I’m right. I’ve seen the light, it’s been revealed to Me, etc.

Enjoy

 

Continue ReadingConspiracy Theory Unofficial Narrative Fake Manufactured Terrorism The story of the London Bombings 7 July 2005 7/7 Jean Charles de Menezes Ian Blair Tony Blair

New tack

Spread the love

GREENPEACE SHIP RAINBOW WARRIOR SAILING FROM CAPE TOWN TO DURBAN!

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.

Continue ReadingNew tack

Jimmy Savile, Ian Blair, the police and the IPCC

Spread the love

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary reports on the many instances that the police refused to pursue allegations against Jimmy Savile due to his status and affiliation(s?). Savile was effectively above the law because it was not applied to hime

The missed chances to get Jimmy Savile

The official report into what police knew – and, critically, failed to do – about Jimmy Savile makes grim reading.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the watchdog that looks at how the police function, looked for evidence of reports, complaints and intelligence that had been gathered on Savile down the years.

They didn’t find a great deal – just seven potentially actionable complaints which emerged during a series of incidents. The inspectorate lists a further series of incidents in which people tried to report Savile and, in effect, failed to get the police to record what they were being told. …

I want it on record that I have experienced the same in trying to get the police to investigate allegations of very serious crimes against former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Ian Blair. I have made serious allegations to the police which are simply ignored. This is exactly the same as with Savile – he’s protected through the police’s refusal to record or take action on any credible allegations against him. Similarly, again it is because of his status and affiliation(s?) although I’m sure that Blair can’t now have any friends and must be universally hated for the useless little shit that he is and has been.

Which brings us to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Why are police treated so differently when they are accused and investigated? Shouldn’t they simply be investigated like any other criminals? Why are they told of accusations against them?

Continue ReadingJimmy Savile, Ian Blair, the police and the IPCC

Voting Lib-Dem and police issues

Spread the love
Cleggeron

The Liberal-Democrats are engaging in allsorts of illiberal and anti-democratic gymnastics to avoid a vote on abolishing the NHS.

I’m sorry to admit that I actually voted(1) Liberal-Democrat at the last general election. I could never vote Tory and I couldn’t bring myself to vote Labour even though it was no longer hijacked by Blair & Co. I’m going to have real problems ever voting Labour. They willingly allowed themselves to be hijacked by a Fascist, psychopathic nutter totally divorced from reality and any concept of truth who quite clearly pursued an alien agenda for so many years. Unison and Unite were so supportive of Him. Is it so important to remain in power that you prostitute all your values? Today, the Liberal Democrats may be following the same path.

Back to voting Liberal-Democat at the last general election. It was a tactical vote but I’m pleased to say that it had no effect since my constituency is certain to return a Labour MP.

As I’m sure that you’re aware – while there was no overall winning party at the General Election the Conservatives and the Liberal-Democrats formed a coalition government, the ConDems. I was pleased that New Labour was eventually defeated and out of power and initially hoped that the Liberal-Democrats would restrain the Tories. No such luck. It turns out that Clegg is a Tory in everything except political party. A European Tory, immensely rich and privilleged and – although exactly the type that are repeatedly appointed – entirely the wrong person to hold any political office. Why oh why did they listen to the press and dump Campbell?

The ConDem coalition – essentially a Tory government – shit on the electorate. Tuition fees, the Education Maintenance Allowance that was so important to poor families and now the NHS. “No top down reorganisation”. What a Blair-faced lie that one was. “We’re not privatisng the NHS”. Well, you’re not selling shares but in every other sense the NHS is getting privatised. Foreign and UK companies running hospitals, the profitable bits getting cherry-picked and a cash-starved shell of an NHS having to pick up the pieces. Health insurance, pay or go without – isn’t that privatisation?. Opposed by all major healthcare associations and yet they continue in destroying the NHS.

“No top-down reorganisation”. There is quite obviously no mandate for change.

The Lib-Dems will and are getting blamed for this. Without them it would not be happening. The toxic comments they get on newspaper articles are instructive. Will it be fatal for them? I expect to be campaigning against the Lib-Dems with anti-Blair vigour unless they change their ways pretty quickly.

(1) To be continued.

19/9/11

DRAFT: to be expanded – particularly murders by police, the role of ACPO.

There are many issues.

I am regarded by oppressive state authorities as an anarchist and potential violent terrorist. This is really quite strange since I consider it important to vote and participate in the democratic process. There is something quite clearly wrong here.

It is clear that I regularly vote as some simple searches will demonstrate. Why then am I regarded as an anarchist? How can the official assessment be so absurdly wrong? Similarly, it is clear that I participate in the democratic process and that I have always participated within the discourse of politics. Why then am I regarded as a potential terrorist – a potential violent extremist? Again, how can the official assessment be so absurdly wrong?

I consider that a huge proportion of it is to do with my perspective and activity. As somebody who rejects fake, manufactured terrorism I have been cast as the enemy. As somebody who recognises and is able to identify the real terrorists, I am the enemy of those terrorists.

Accusations of terrorism used to involve issues such as making bombs and using bombs and the threats of such things. We have seen – particularly over the last decade – that terrorism is used by strong vested interests to promote and pursue a particular agenda. Accusations of terrorism are now cheapened and directed at those that oppose such strong vested interests.

Oppressive state authorities promote the official ideology of fake, manufactured terrorism while the true anti-terrorist is cast as the terrorist. Accusations of terrorism have come to be directed at percieved opponents of some powerful interest group.

The official assessment is so absurdly wrong because the world has been turned on its head. Those that should be concerned with fighting terrorism are the terrorists and those that are accused of being terrorists are the anti-terrorists.

20/9/11 Still in Draft: may be altered and to be expanded

The question remains: Why is the official police assessment of me so absurdly wrong despite clear and obvious evidence to the contrary?

While it is accepted that the police are capable of staggering incompetence, there is more than that. I think that the answer is harassment – it is obvious that suspected terrorists can be violently killed by police with complete impunity at any time. This is a continuation of the harassment I endured from Ian Blair and John Reid. The same bullshit is involved – homegrown terrorists, liquid explosives, etc.

I think that many murders by police that are similar to me are intended to reinforce this point i.e. we can kill people similar to you so we can kill you. The police involved and their superiors are responsible for these murders by police and they are likely to continue until they are held to account.

 

Continue ReadingVoting Lib-Dem and police issues

Coming soon

Spread the love

I will be looking at one of the victims of  7/7

Helena Katherine Jones

Almost as if she was a chosen victim, isn’t it? … a successful human rights lawyer … active in opposition to Blair & Co’s Iraq war

… but how is that possible … if they were attacks by suicide bombers?

 

 

Continue ReadingComing soon