The fiend… the monster…. killing’s too good for him…. This man is dangerous and should only be tackled by highly trained security professionals…
Walter Wolfgang, 82, first of all heckled the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, when he started talking nonsense about Iraq.
‘Nonsense!’, he said.
The heavies came out and removed him. Mr Wolfgang may not have been too co-operative so, maybe, a little firmness was required. Anyway, eventually they ejected him.
Mr Wolfgang tried to re-enter the hall, but was refused permission under Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. His conference pass was also confiscated.
It didn’t stop with Mr Wolfgang - a member of the Labour Party for more than half a century:
Steve Forrest, a constituency party chairman from Erith and Thamesmead in south-east London, was also ejected after complaining about Mr Wolfgang’s treatment. Mr Wolfgang, a party member for 57 years, told the BBC 2’s Daily Conference Live programme: “I shouted ‘nonsense’. That’s all I said. Then these two toughies manhandled me out.”
And this is where it all starts to get a little frightening. Exactly how extensive is the Prevention of Terrorism Act that it can bar a person for heckling? Which area of our lives is the Act not able to intrude? This from the ACPO site gives a rough plain English description of Section 44 and most of my tea-break Googling reveals the section to be mostly concerned with stop and search of potential terrorist suspects.
It’s worth noting that this behaviour is being meted out on Labour’s own supporters at their own televised conference. If that’s how they treat their own then how will they treat the rest of us?
With the disdain and contempt that they always have treated us, no doubt…
Some good might come of this. Blair has upset his own - both his constituency and Westminster party. Even pro-Iraq MP’s are upset. Do you think he will be able to get his draconian changes (judging from his conference speech) to our criminal justice system through? I doubt it. And it might just be the spark that ignites boring old Gordon. Hopefully that will give the Tories the cover from the media they need to get electable.
Comment by lascivious — September 29, 2005 @ 2:00 pm
Blair has shot himself in the foot so many times, it’s a wonder he can get about at all.
Comment by krip — September 29, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
At least Blair only shot himself in the foot.
Normally it is the ‘terrorist’ who gets shot.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — September 29, 2005 @ 8:50 pm
Under whose direction did the police apply the Terrorism act on Mr Wolfgang? Were they justified in using it to keep an old man out of a conference for which he had a pass? If they weren’t whose head will roll?
If they were well, that tells us something a little discomfitting about the Act…
Comment by Gary Monro — September 29, 2005 @ 11:53 pm
Is “boring old Gorden” a convenient unelectable “opposition”, or are conservatives incompetent and stupid?
In the US it was Kerry and Australia has Beazly and previously Latham all presenting more of the same wrapped with a different shade of ribbon.
This we are told is “democracy” - The will of the people.
Mark Latham recently released his “diaries” revealing that the Labour party only had about eight thousand members.
Political parties are a racket of opportunism where a tiny bunch of busy beavers pretend they are representing the genuine will of their communities but never dare to confront tricky questions about real power and the “money” trickery that robs the people blind delivering the spoils of the nation into the hands of a few.
Those that are prepared to play this game are rewarded in proportion to their abilities and loyalty to the policy of monopoly.
Real economic justice and morality never come into the equation except for political conversations to sooth the electorate.
Corporations govern us all and only select political players that are prepared to ignore financial and physical realities that could deliver prosperity and security for all with ease.
Gary, your confession that you do not understand the “money creation” process is staggering given this system is the foundation of all social and political policy and theory.
Most elected politicians in Australia have an incomplete knowledge of money, credit, debt and where it is all created. The implications of the masking of money truth can not be overstated.
In simple terms, the wealth of a community depends on the human psychology and skills combined with the physical realities - resources, climate, etc.
Money is a SYSTEM not a COMMODITY.
All money is created when debt[credit] is advanced to the individuals, corporations or Government.
Debt must be repaid plus interest.
The mathematical consequence is that the debt cost must grow because there is never enough credit to extinguish the debt and the interest.
today $1000 of debt owed
in one year $ 1080 owed yet there is not enough
money in existence to pay the debt.
A small proportion of the difference is recovered by interest on deposits but in reality in the complexity of our economy this is very little.
Of course the banks are always prepared to create some more debt to keep the system functioning but naturally this just compounds over time.
This mathematical flaw has been extensively studied and discussed in hundreds of books but you will never find them in your local library.
This is hidden knowledge.
What effect does this banking policy have in a practical sense?
It makes bankruptcy and the “cost price squeeze” a regular instrument of pressure and control in the hands of those who dictate the money creation policy at any particular time.
The money supply can be employed to dispossess the weak and enrich the strong by contracting or expanding the money supply to the whole economy or particular sectors.
Money is in fact infinite because it is a system just like distance “mm” or weight “kg”.
The often made political excuse that we have no money to build a road or school is evidence that the “government” is not in fact the government.
Would we ever countenance the statement that there are no “mm” available so the labour and materials must remain idle until we find some.
A sovereign Government should have power over the “money” system of the governed protecting the morality and honesty of the activities of the people with a “means of exchange” that is stable and reflects and serves the physical realities and will of that community.
The tragedy of our time is the concentrated monopoly of the money creation that vandalises the abundance of the natural world towards the power and greed agenda of a few.
All about us is the evidence of material prosperity and potential yet unreleased but political party players happily ignore the truth in exchange for their personal benefit and ambition.
Despite the material wealth visible in our amenities and living circumstance the “money trick” extracts everything the community can bear in debt costs as we all are forced to quench the unquenchable mathematical deficit of our monopoly debt system of money tickets.
After all, these money tickets only measure the real wealth created in our factories and farms, offices and service industries.
The banking system in fact creates billions and trillions of computer credit out of nothing in an almost costless process.
Many people can just not fathom this reality.
Money realities are drowned in pompous confusion and mystery to the point that university educated
economists and finance technicians cannot answer basic questions.
A good question is why is it that when the parliament has the power to create its money requirements on terms and conditions that would serve and benefit the public the resort to borrowing at terms that enrich the banking cartels?
The answer is they are the servants of the banking cartels and the people have been betrayed.
http://www.brooksuncensored.com/BrooksUncensoredJohnFDueCreditCreation.html
http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/trick.php
So Gary, where do you think money comes from and what is it`s nature?
How is it created and what are the terms and conditions possible?
Why do the Conservative Party betray the truth and why are you party to these crimes?
Comment by Christopher Brooks — September 30, 2005 @ 12:12 am
Is “boring old Gorden” a convenient unelectable “opposition”, or are conservatives incompetent and stupid?
No - I was just commenting on how the focus of the media’s attention might move from Conservative leadership battles to the skullduggery in the Labour party. If only the Tories would get on with policy formation rather than stabbing each other in the back, Labour might find it a bit hotter under the collar when trying to govern.
Comment by lascivious — September 30, 2005 @ 9:02 am
I have often been accused here at the Monro Blog of not presenting any substance, but every time I have referenced my points with evidence that supports my claims.
I also notice that the thread, like this one, falls silent without any refutation of the material I reference towards.
The “terrorism” sensations are riddled with unresolved questions and no support for judicial process here.
Oil reserves are possibly so abundant that limiting supply and refinery capacity is now the strategy of the petroleum monopoly to increase profits. This was ignored by commentators at this blog who prefer to cry “conspiracy theory” rather than face the implications.
Money realities also seem to be a subject that gets the silent treatment. It always does!
Is politics just a convenient self serving game, or does the justice and truth of things matter?
Is there not a responsibility to find the truth before we assume any decision making activities that might impact on others?
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 2, 2005 @ 2:33 am
“The “terrorism” sensations are riddled with unresolved questions and no support for judicial process here.”
Certainly, however coming over as a foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorist is not going to advance your cause much or make people pay much attention to what you say.
It’s not even clear what your position is. Please state it. Then provide some evidence for it (hint: evidence against the ‘official version of events’ is not evidence for your version of events). At the moment your position seems to consist entirely of handwaving, pointers to third-hand fringe sources, and dark hints of a grand conspiracy (including as Gary has noted, a hint that Robin Cook was murdered).
In fact your presentation is so moonbat that even if you were right, the most logical conclusion would be that you yourself are some kind of CIA fabrication designed to provide our shadowy overlords with an easy means of dismissing all dissent and questioning as the work of loons.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — October 2, 2005 @ 10:43 am
Frank, I unlike the chorus at this blog do not condemn Muslims as criminals for crimes that have yet to be examined in a constituted and judicial process.
It is hardly legitimate to characterise all info that contradicts your point of view as “loony” when your source of “reality” fabricated the WMD fiasco in concert with your political and intelligence personnel.
How do you explain the sanity of believing in WMD claims that have been totally discredited and exposed as propaganda?
Iraq was innocent of all charges.
The charges were fabricated.
Our political servants and media were complicit.
They are guilty of criminal behaviour.
Much of today’s truth was deemed “loon” at some time in the past by people who simply did not have a complete knowledge of things.
My “position” is crystal clear.
Without judicial process and transparent, constituted and accountable Government we can not be certain of much at all.
Trial by media is for “moonbats”.
Conspiracy is the central theme of all politics
throughout all of history. To evaluate the political activity of our time and pretend otherwise is childish but those with power are happy you suspect them of no self interest.
In fact they go to great efforts to “educate” the public that “conspiracy” is “loony” when in fact it is the bread and butter of power and wealth.
While you continue with such noble optimism they will certainly find no resistance on your part to their designs and exploitations of humanity.
Once again no mention of the substance of my
argument on “money creation” and it`s implications.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 2, 2005 @ 7:39 pm
For once I agree with Frank. I think Hell just froze over.
Comment by Dumb Brit — October 3, 2005 @ 12:11 am
“Much of today’s truth was deemed “loon” at some time in the past by people who simply did not have a complete knowledge of things.”
‘They all laughed at Edison, they all laughed at Einstein…and they all laughed at Coco the Clown’ (Carl Sagan, I think)
“Without judicial process and transparent, constituted and accountable Government we can not be certain of much at all.”
Yet you seem incredibly certain. Of what, I’m still not clear. But whatever it is you seem extremely convinced of it.
As to your money creation stuff, again it’s very unclear what exactly you are trying to say, and besides I’m not an economist. I don’t believe wealth and resources are infinite however, which seems to be what you wish to imply. Nor do I believe money is a measure like ‘mm’, except maybe in so far as redefining ‘mm’ won’t make us all any taller.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 3, 2005 @ 7:26 pm
Frank, money and wealth are two different concepts, just as length and wood are not the
same thing.
I did not suggest wealth was infinite, I said money was infinite.
Your misunderstanding of these important concepts
is what allows the “money trick” to prosper and concentrate the assets of human effort into the hands of a minority.
Money is created from nothing just as “mm” are
when debt is advanced to borrowers.
This is Central Banking.
If your community had the resources to incarnate a project you would never pay for the “mm” or “m2″ or “kg” you may need to measure the process of production. You never buy numbers to count things or km to travel to your destination because these are all units of measure that have infinite potential depending on your physical wants and resource capacity.
So why do people accept that money is not available or too expensive when every other
requirement is in excess for producing higher living standards and services.
Millions in your and my country do no work, produce nothing, yet much is desired to better our lives.
Stop the project shouts the “moonbat” there are no “mm” left, all go home early, we will let you know if we find some more. You may have to go hungry and homeless for there is no “mm” left to measure your food and shelter.
Did it occur to you Frank that some study might be timely upon this subject.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 3, 2005 @ 11:13 pm
“Frank, money and wealth are two different concepts, just as length and wood are not the
same thing.
I did not suggest wealth was infinite, I said money was infinite”
Money is a measure or proxy for wealth and resources, which are not infinite right now. Creation of money doesn’t create resources. We could go back to bartering but most of us prefer to pay for our train tickets with a card rather than with a bunch of chickens. Also, markets are the most efficient means of allocating resources that are known, and they require liquidity of some sort - i.e. something like money - to do so.
Money is not perfect, but have you got something better? It doesn’t seem so.
“So why do people accept that money is not available or too expensive when every other
requirement is in excess for producing higher living standards and services.”
Because it is far from obvious that every other requirement is in excess for producing higher living standards and services. Money or no money, if every person currently on the planet were to live a typical western lifestyle the amount of land and water needed to support just the food production for those people would be vast, probably to the extent of requiring multiple planet earths. That’s before they all want cars and TVs and all the rest.
Regardless, who are you accusing and of what? Remember, due process and rule of law and evidence and all that. You seem to forget all that when it comes to your own theories - we’re supposed to go out and lynch these people (whoever they may be) based on little more than your dark hints it seems.
And are you intending to establish some link between all this and 9/11 and 7/7 etc and the ‘murder of robin cook’ anytime soon?
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 3, 2005 @ 11:52 pm
Just one issue.
……Oil reserves are possibly so abundant that limiting supply and refinery capacity is now the strategy of the petroleum monopoly to increase profits……
First there is no monopoly. Opec is a cartel that controls 40% of production. They may have more capacity in store, but certainly not much. If you knew anything about game theory, you would understand why nobody is holding anything back.
As for refining capacity, for a long time, a surplus of capacity has led to profit margins which do not cover the financial cost of refinery investment. Who will then make the necessary investments? Now margins are high. Look for a rash of new investments.
Comment by EU Serf — October 4, 2005 @ 3:01 pm
Frank, Europe is as densely populated as any part of the world yet it easily produces in excess.
Your farmers are subsidised to discourage over production. In America farmers are paid not to produce.
Only a very small proportion of the worlds land mass would be required to easily satisfy the population of the planet.
India was a basket case only a couple of decades ago and now is a substantial exporter of food.
It is the social dynamic and “money” manipulation that destroy the potential social credit of many communities that without law and security, do not progress. It is never the climate or physical constraints though often these issues are blamed to avoid exposing the tricky games of power and exploitation.
My own humble 150 hectare farming business produces 130,000 kg/milk solids annually.
This will be 150,000 in the next couple of years.
If intensive horticulture replaced my milking herd the food production would be multiplied ten fold. In Australia right this day farmers are dumping citrus and potatoes fields are being left idle.
Every town and factory is keenly seeking orders - “money”- to give work to idle labour and facilities. Technological opportunities of vast potential remain unexploited because the “money” system deems “work” is essential for access to the fruits of nature. Robotics and knowledge are fast making work unnecessary but policy dictates insist more “jobs” be “created” so we can get access to the fruits of the industrial machine of our age.
The solution to the growing abundance of our potential is the distribution of a social dividend to all members of the community in relative statistical proportion to the growth or decline of the dividends of an abundant expanding potential.
Work dividends,salaries,contracts,etc, would be separate but naturally over time influence the social dividend.
The nations social dividend in total would be a generous sum but still be a lesser cost than the current “welfare” industry that discriminates against the better instincts of social behaviour.
The “welfare” industry is a political control strategy where by my proposal of a social dividend gives true democratic freedom to ever member of the community to decide if “work” and the increased dividends are desirable or not.
The motivated and industrious receive a social dividend and are free to prosper in work and business as they see fit without any penalty.
Natural reward and effort balance is returned and the bean counting “welfare” culture along with the stigma and corruption is abolished.
The administration requirements would be dramatically reduced releasing thousands from meaningless frustrating “work” which could be replaced with leisure yet no less production results.
Why is a social dividend necessary?
Because our command over nature as a society multiplies with time and the only sane approach is to ensure our “money” system reflects that expanding wealth in our living circumstance.
The present monopoly created “debt” system of
money growth delivers the expansion of our wealth into the hands of a few where it does not morally belong.
To comprehend my proposal it is essential that you grasp the credit creation process as it currently functions.
Eu Serf, the last decade has seen a rapid concentration in the Petroleum industry with mergers and extensive cross ownership and joint venture relationships. Monopoly it certainly is.
I agree all and sundry have a right to a just dividend.
I don`t think an exposure of the cost and profit statistics of the oil industry will ever be available for scrutiny but to increase the cost of fuel at the bowser by 40% in only a couple of years should sound alarms.
I have previously referenced the staggering reserve prediction growth made by the Saudis and Mexico only last April on this blog site.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 4, 2005 @ 7:21 pm
“If intensive horticulture replaced my milking herd the food production would be multiplied ten fold.”
That’s what I was getting at when I mentioned water, not just land. A lot of people want their food in the form of meat, which has a very big water footprint. Also inefficient as far as I know.
Look up ‘virtual water’. Oz is a substantial exporter of it, mostly in the form of meat I believe.
“to increase the cost of fuel at the bowser by 40% in only a couple of years should sound alarms”
Peak Oil perhaps? If not, wait a while.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 4, 2005 @ 8:34 pm
Frank, I understand your point in regards to choice and consequence with diet preference.
Efficiency in my mind must include the desire of the community. It might be very “efficient” if it was legislated that we all lived on a diet of rice and pumpkin, I will not support it.
The point I make is that our capacity to produce food is way beyond our needs, and that of any community. It is “money” and political policy that deliver a social dynamic that destroys our abundant potential and the freedom that it would deliver.
“Peak oil” is just another face to the energy scares that have been a regular part of the political landscape ever since oil was discovered and exploited as a resource.
The record shows that despite the dire predictions known energy reserves have expanded at a faster rate than consumption.
The recent Saudi and Mexican announcements continue that trend. Some scientists even suggest that the fossil theory of petroleum is not correct and the oil is replacing itself.
I certainly remain open minded to all information.
I base my comprehension on a view that the world was created with generous abundance in it`s design. History reveals the discovery process of this reality just waiting to be released for our benefit.
The degree we achieve success or failure is in direct relationship to the morality of the social dynamic of the age.
As a farmer, as a parent, as a thinking member of my community I am constantly taught and disciplined by the intelligence in the design of our human nature and the physical world.
Money must be grounded in the reality and service of just human endeavour or it is nothing less than an instrument of dictatorship in the hands of those who would create, manipulate and control it`s supply, terms and conditions of use.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 4, 2005 @ 10:34 pm
This is a long way from the conspiracy theories etc you started in with. I don’t have much issue with your comments about the rule of law, due process and evidence etc…it is pretty standard stuff if a little bizarrely presented…where you cross the line is failing to apply the same standards of evidence to the accusations that you yourself level against others.
You yourself are far too hasty in going from suspicion to conviction, when it concerns some theory of your own…something most people do from time to time, however this is the same accusation you constantly level at those who you say are too hasty to convict ‘muslims’ of terrorism (the broad gist of which I partly agree with, though not your alternate theories).
You have even accused at least Gary, if not everyone here apart from yourself, of being ‘party to crimes’ as far as I recall (I don’t recall the exact quote, I may be mistaken). I don’t see eye to eye with Gary on much, but such statements requires a lot more justification than you have offered, and Gary has been extremely tolerant if you ask me. Similarly hinting that Cook was murdered is not good enough. Evidence please. And whodunnit.
“Money must be grounded in the reality and service of just human endeavour or it is nothing less than an instrument of dictatorship in the hands of those who would create, manipulate and control it`s supply, terms and conditions of use.”
Again it’s not clear what you are saying. Define what you mean by ‘reality’ and ‘just human endeavour’. Today many scarce resources are intangible and almost unreal, and despite that they can be bought and sold. Google has made a billion dollar business out of selling people’s attention. Microsoft, and the music, film, and book industries have done the same by selling bits. David Beckham is a multimillionaire because he can kick a football, JK Rowling earns more than the queen by selling a story. Thousands of knowledge workers don’t make as much but still earn scads more than most essentially by selling information - word documents, emails - bits again.
Are these things justifiable and explicable economically? Absolutely. Just as the factories you mentioned lie idle because they presumably make nothing that people want, or that they can afford, or that they can’t get cheaper elsewhere.
If the things you say are abundant are really abundant (still far from obvious), then you would expect them to become cheaper. Some people’s standard of living would rise accordingly, while anyone who previously made a living out of providing that stuff would be less well off. Most of us would be better off. These things seem like inevitable consequences of abundance itself, and would happen with or without money.
Maybe some scarce resources today won’t be scarce forever, energy for example (but probably not oil unless we work out how to synthesise it), maybe we can all kick back while robots do the work, however it seems likely that other scarce resources will take the place of the current ones then. Markets and economies will still exist.
They still aren’t making any more land, for example, and we’d all like a house on a few acres I’m sure. And if you want a private concert from your favourite singer, consultancy from some megaguru, a rare motorcycle, the best seats at some sporting event, a meal cooked by the best chef, the vintage wine, you’ll always pay extra for those. These are all things that people will want but there’s not enough to go around for everyone that wants them. Nothing anyone does to money will ever change that, and these are just a few examples from many.
“As a farmer, as a parent, as a thinking member of my community I am constantly taught and disciplined by the intelligence in the design of our human nature and the physical world.”
Hmmm. See now you’re not doing yourself any favours with that line of chat, either.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 5, 2005 @ 12:06 am
Frank, I agree with your value and preference comments. All very valid but “money” is a mathematical system that is in fact not related to real things.
Wealth is created in all the activities you describe and of course many others.
Money is created in the process of advancing debt by a banking administration process.
Let me put it briefly and simply in a story to make my point.
A community applies it`s effort to the resource available in a complexity of interacting relationships that include the spectrum of values and change as you describe.
The community own and consume the sum of their effort in a closed economic model.
Entrance the bank - Money is created to facilitate the transactions from thin air, and
secured by a lien over the assets of the community.
The community must pay back {cancel} their debt and the interest charged but the sum available is not sufficient in total because the banking process creates $X of ledger money but the community owes $x + $interest.
The community is in fact technically bankrupt as a whole for it is impossible to repay the debt with all the money in existence.
The bank is naturally happy to expand the debt to avoid the problem but this simply aggravates the flaw in the process.
Total debt must expand constantly to maintain the system and as it does so the concentrating force is inevitable as a portion of the economy is condemned to bankruptcy because the ledger record is mathematically flawed.
This very simple attempt to describe a complex but clear behaviour of our monopoly money system is extensively discussed and detailed on the web elsewhere if you care to take the time to read.
These statistical behaviours of “money creation”
are in fact completely disconnected from material wealth issues you described.
Without some effort on your part to study my points in some more detail I accept you may not grasp this distinction or it`s centrality to our lives.
The central truth in my argument is in fact quite simple, it is the complexity of finance economics as practised that generates the confusion.
That which can be psychologically and physically achieved must certainly be financially possible because money for a sovereign Government costs almost nothing. The political reality is that any who suggest the money creation monopoly should be tempered by Government intervention have very bleak career prospects.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 5, 2005 @ 7:35 am
“Total debt must expand constantly to maintain the system and as it does so the concentrating force is inevitable as a portion of the economy is condemned to bankruptcy because the ledger record is mathematically flawed.”
The flaw in your argument (I think) is that capitalism is not a zero-sum game: when two people engage in a transaction both benefit.
You’re also missing the point that banks can lend money that they do not actually have. This process (mostly) works because the people who borrow the money generally put it in another bank.
It’s well known that if everybody showed up at the bank at once to empty their accounts (as in the movie “it’s a wonderful life”), the bank doesn’t actually have it.
It’s also fairly well known that private creation of money is possible (just typically illegal or at least heavily regulated).
For example, consider that a system such as oystercard in london could be used to buy things other than tube journeys (which I think is actually the case? Never tried).
When someone lodges £20 to that card, there is temporarily £40 in the system. The company has £20 to spend that it did not have before, and I still have £20 to spend via my oystercard. £20 has been created, albeit temporarily.
Anyone can create such a system.
Money even bleeds out of the system, like water out of leaky pipes (coins down the back of the sofa, bugs in computer systems, simple wearing out of notes, etc).
None of the things above are flaws or evidence of any dark conspiracy, they are just some facts of what happens. The whole system is vastly more complex than you give it credit for. It far more resembles a complex adaptive system than the simple equations you use. Such systems exhibit unpredictable, emergent, and ‘bottom up’ behaviours, and defy common sense. I don’t believe that any one person or small group can genuinely understand or control such a system except in very crude ways. Which is why I do not believe anyone has taken the reins to enslave us. Far more worrying, perhaps, is the fact that nobody is in control of the money system.
Governments and traders try to predict and manipulate the ‘money system’ every day, and contrary to popular belief, none of them are very good at it.
Now that I’ve answered your questions, will you answer the questions I asked?
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 5, 2005 @ 11:38 pm
I continue to point out Frank, the stories the Government would have us believe create many more unanswered questions than answers.
That is why I do not accept the “official” view of “terror” and continue to argue that without judicial process we know very little.
My argument continues that we have no legal or validated evidence to substantiate the “Muslim conspiracy theory” because it has not been examined in any transparent fashion.
Hence all the war policies and anti terror legislation’s are potentially fraudulent at their foundation.
I raise the possibility that there may well indeed be other explanations for the activities of the Leeds four because that is in fact so.
Surely you are aware that the sensational “tapes” and “audios” have been already deemed fraudulent and doctored by technical experts that have identified that these “star” terrorists actually have several different voice definitions.
I do disbelieve the 911 Muslim conspiracy theory because the evidence, now discussed on hundreds of web sites and published books renders the official story impossible.
There are dozens of issues discussed in thousands of articles and speeches by a growing number of prominent and legitimate commentators from a wide range of expertise.
The US 911 commission ignored much key evidence.
Have you read David Ray Griffin? He provides one of the better examinations of the issues in his two published works on the subject.
I do accept that there is a large contingent of disinformation researchers publishing wildly speculative theories based on imagination only.
This is standard practice in the murky games of information and public perception.
The general public are distanced from the real evidence and issues by the “lunatic” fringe who appear to have agendas not consistent with genuine research. Draw your own conclusions.
The truth will only be arrived at when enough people confront the growing secrecy of the political process and the failure of the media to examine the contradictions and lies presented.
If your comment referred to other issues please point me there.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 7, 2005 @ 8:39 pm
That is why I do not accept the “official” view of “terror” and continue to argue that without judicial process we know very little.
Fine…
I raise the possibility that there may well indeed be other explanations for the activities of the Leeds four because that is in fact so.
Of course. However most of them are extremely implausible, and the ones that are plausible are not very interesting. And we’ll probably never know what happened with any confidence.
It’s obvious that spin is being applied and the media is being managed. Besides, that has been the m.o. of this govt for everything else. Even without that, by the time chinese whispers, bias, and plain ignorance of the media have been applied to just about any complex issue it’s difficult to be sure of anything. Primary sources matter.
It’s never necessary to posit some plot when simple greed, laziness, ignorance, incompetence, prejudice, or plain stupidity will suffice. I don’t think this govt is above lying, and opportunistically using events to scare the public, when it suits their ideological goals. I do think they are above deliberately and directly killing their own citizens, which is the usual fare of the conspiracy theorists.
If your comment referred to other issues please point me there.
You’ve made a lot of accusations in various posts that you need to justify. Anytime I ask you this you retreat to a position of “we just don’t know anything” or “we’re too hasty to judge [muslim terrorists]”. But that’s not what I’m talking about - left to your own devices you constantly make assertions to the effect that you think you do know something and that are highly judgemental. Some of these points you make are just vague accusations at the govt etc, however some are more personally aimed at Gary, and some are aimed at commenters at this blog. I think you need to back those up or retract them.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — October 7, 2005 @ 11:39 pm
Hmmmmm, my robust challenge to Gary has been met with no response.
I certainly am very deliberate in challenging anyone who assumes responsibility or power over the political affairs of others.
The “money” system fraud is beyond question.
Yourself or Gary have not referred to the evidence I referenced - I presume you have not read it.
It is not at all unreasonable that Gary should have a grasp of the credit creation mechanism.
It is the foundation of all human activity and the manipulation and monopoly of the credit creation process is the key instrument of greed and power in the world.
Clearly Frank you are intelligent and your views certainly reveal thoughtful insights but I have seen no hint that you grasp the distinction I am drawing between “money” creation and “wealth” creation.
The “money” creators employ their privilege to vandalise, sabotage, strangle, saturate, manipulate and disposes the honest endeavors of the ignorant masses.
Sadly, the common folk presume their political reps, media and academia are presenting the honest truth about money and wealth.
They are not. The documented facts on money creation are clear.
“Money” belongs to the wealth producers it is created to facilitate.
The Banking System, or those who control it, in fact function as if the money belongs to them and we all pay … and pay .. and pay … and pay.
This will one day perhaps be recognised for the insanity that it is.
The money trickery transfers a majority of every member of the economies real wealth towards the monopolist and the various assistants
to the monopoly idea and policies.
All politicians are assistants, ignorant or otherwise. They should know how money works.
In my experience most people in positions of power simply do not want to discuss the issue.
The cost of the “money” ignorance is millions upon millions of lives.
The “money” trickery is not the cause but it is the primary deception that confuses the honest intentions of the majority who strive with best intentions to make a better world and lessen the misery of the exploited and abandoned in a world of expanding abundance.
Frank, we should be enjoying the age of leisure and security but the world is to be delivered into another global conflict because it is the only resolution for the powerful, of a “money” system that builds debt misery in mathematical relationship with material prosperity and security.
The two are a miserable contradiction.
This in turn builds economic conflict and chaos which eventually becomes a shooting war.
As long as Gary or any other is happy to ignore the tragedy of the debt money policy then I will confront him, yourself and all and sundry to justify why you would support such a dismal result for humanity when far superior result is possible.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 8, 2005 @ 4:54 am
Mr Brooks,
You will be aware of why I do not engage in much conversation with you on these various matters. Without wishing to be rude I am frustrated by your use of allusion and hint without stating something really concrete. I have asked you several times before to please assert something, go out on a limb and suggest a real and verifiable possibility, backed with evidence that can be either challenged or, after investigation, dismissed.
I have actually looked at some (but not all) your links and they have not been much help, to be perfectly honest.
Some months ago you accepted my offer of a guest posting - the offer being an attempt to get you to commit to something solid, something we could grasp hold of and discuss. The post clarified nothing. Some commenters were rude about the post - and disparaging of me for printing it - but I sense they felt the same frustration at the lack of anything they could actually make any sense of that I do.
Maybe the lacking is actually your audience’s Mr Brooks but if it is then you, as a man who teaches, must find the skills necessary to get your points over in meaningful and comprehensible terms. With respect, I believe you have failed to do this and for as long as you continue to fail then your beliefs - which may, for all the rest of us know, be very well be well-founded and essentially true - continue to sound deliberately vague and ultimately unsubstantiated.
Comment by Gary Monro — October 9, 2005 @ 11:12 pm
Gary, I referenced an extensive site on the “money” and “credit creation” question but you have not pointed out a single sentence that you believe is false.
It is very convenient to avoid the issues and facts by trotting out the line that I have presented nothing.
In fact I continue to present references that you continue to ignore and pretend do not exist.
You are reminding me of my local member, Stone.
Gary, if your Government could create all the money needed to pay out your national debt and charge itself .1% interest over a 100 year term saving the public from horrendous debt cost would it be moral to ignore this potential and leave the public ignorant and poorer while the “money changers” wallow in their riches and possess more of the nation every year that goes by?
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 10, 2005 @ 8:26 am
Gary, I just browsed through the numerous articles on the Prosperity site I pointed towards and thought this might be a particular angle of the history that might interest yourself.
The Royal Commission reference leads to some very interesting exposure of the banking scandal.
Of course you would have to research to find this material but it is substance.
Of course you could also just ignore the whole issue and have a successful political career!
http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/kerby.php
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 10, 2005 @ 8:36 am