**EXCLUSIVE** - Nick Clegg says "we are not a sect" (and willing to drop liberal values to get votes....)

Several hours ago I attended 'An Evening with the Liberal Democrats' at Sheffield University. Representing the Liberal Democrats were Nick Clegg, Paddy Ashdown and Paul Scriven (LD councillor and leader of Sheffield City Council). After a sickening propaganda video with various LD voters praising Clegg and the LDs (without identifying a single policy), the representatives got down to business. All three gave a brief polemical stint mostly involving slating Labour and the Tories and asking, rhetorically, "who do you trust".

After this the floor was opened for questions.

I managed to get in first and went straight for a salvo aimed at Clegg. I identified myself as a member of the Libertarian Party and said that there were many reasons I was a member of LPUK and not the LDs. This was because, I explained, they did not deserve the name 'Liberal' and should instead, as others have remarked, more accurately call themselves "social democrats". I pointed out numerous examples where they seemed willing to eject their liberal principles in the interests of (what they thought were) populist sentiments. I specified in particular their attitude to the EU and the fact that they no longer supported a referendum and ended by saying that the closer they got to power, the more they were willing to eject principles, pander to populism and therefore were just more of the same - the same political class as the 'big two'.

Clegg got very shirty with me. He got on a full head of steam, gesticulating boldy as he told me (and everyone else) that he passionately disagreed with everything I said. What was particularly amusing is that just prior to the questions starting he said that he was really pleased to see everyone attending, whatever their political background and said he welcomed disagreement and discussion.

According to Clegg, the Liberal Democrats are "not a sect" and "are intending to win an election" and therefore "need to make our [their] policies understandable." and "not preaching on matters of principle" I heckled back "so what are your principles?" he ignored me and continued his tirade, claiming that being in Europe was best for the country.

Now I don't know about you dear reader, however I interpreted that as a direct vindication of what I said: Clegg was admitting that he and his party were perfectly happy to jettison their principles in order to gain votes. I had to hold back the urge to respond with expletives.

Paddy also responded to me shortly after, though only on the issue of the Lisbon Treaty. According to Mr. Pantsdown - and see if you can get your head around this cognitive dissonance - "Lisbon is not a big shifting in power. It's a pooling of sovereignty." Unless we both have diametrically opposed understandings of the meaning of 'sovereignty', the compromising of it is - to me - about the largest shift of power I can imagine between states. He went on to claim "if it was a big shift in power, and not just tinkering around the edges, the Liberal Democrats would not be supporting it."

So there you have it folks - no answer to the question of a referendum, they know better than we do. And the pooling of sovereignty is "not a big shifting in power". Go back to sleep silly little people asking questions.

But there's more.....some of their answers to other questions were equally hilarious and/or disturbing:

"My home is on loan from the British taxpayer"
In response to a question about being caught out on expenses, Cleggs' response was hilarious. Apparently the reason he thought it was fine to land the taxpayer with the bill for his gardening was because he considered his home "on loan" from the British taxpayer and he wanted to make sure it was nice. He also said that as a result when he sold his home, any profit made would go straight back to the taxpayer.

Of course Nick, of course. (Incidentally, he also got very shirty with this questioner as he did with me).

All three representatives continually referenced the idea of handing power back down to local levels. I couldn't help thinking that what they actually mean by this is handing over to Brussels' plans for regionalisation.

Green Issues

This was fun. Clegg made some astonishing and worrying commitments here. Not only should 1st world taxpayers apparently pay for third world nations to "leapfrog" industrialization and use "sustainable" technologies instead, but - wait for it - Clegg wants to give legal force to the AWG consensus. Amusingly, after all this preaching, someone asked him if he would be in Copenhagen. His excuse? Apparently he's not going because his place is here in the UK harassing the government on these issues. Right.

As an extra, hilarious addendum, councillor Paul Scriven boasted how Sheffield City Council was now giving away green waste sacks for garden refuse. Apparently this is a "green" measure. No it isn't you twat. You're just giving away bags to people who a) have gardens to tend and b) have the time to tend them usefully. How does it reduce anyone's carbon footprint. He also claimed they were "free". The fact that political officials can still say this kind of thing with a straight face highlights the woeful financial literacy of the nation. Of course it isn't free. It's paid for by the Council, funded by Council Tax which is paid for by.....



Sheffield's finest

I've had quite a few interactions with Sheffield's LD councillors. I've watched them debate issues I've had an interest in also in the council chambers. They make lots of grand promises, then break them. The clearest thing to any observer is that what they care about most is giving the Labour Councillors a kicking and looking good to the electorate.

Imagine Mr. Scriven's response then, when a man suddenly stood up at the front and identified himself as a teacher and LD member who was having serious second thoughts about the party since they had taken control of Sheffield City Council. Apparently the council were closing his school down and he thought this was completely unjustified. I don't know the details of this one, but Scriven's response was very telling, especially after the teacher alleged that another councillor, one Andrew Sangar claimed that "whatever Clegg says doesn't matter, Sheffield City Council will still do what it wants."

Scriven went on to state how badly the school was failing, that most pupils came out with five GCSEs or less. A woman in the audience suddenly said "my daughter got thirteen GCSEs from that school". Scriven dismissed her, saying "well done", and continued his rant. He said that the LDs were not closing the school, but in "consultation", at which point I let out a loud belly laugh and everyone stopped to look at me, even Scriven. He went on to give a rousing case for making sure every kid had a fair chance blah blah blah. Unfortunately his delivery was good enough that he got a big round of applause.

So - in summary - the Lib Dems, from this performance, were far worse than I thought they were already. Top grade snake oil salesmen from Lord to MP to councillor. And they proved me right - all they offer is just more of the same.

Sibel reveals all! Time to take action

Sibel Edmonds has finally revealed everything she knows, risking imprisonment or worse. The MSM will of course try to bury this story - I'd like to ask everyone to please circulate this story, especially as it has so many important British links (vis a vis The Griffins, Libya, BCCI and more). Remember, she is “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.” - for years now she has been silenced by the draconian state secrets privilege.

Despite the substantial british connections in the international web identified by Sibel, our own MSM has been missing in action (again). For anyone wondering why I have stuck with this story so doggedly, aside from wishing to support a woman of such integrity as Sibel, it is also because this is one of the fault lines of the British corporate-government-criminal nexus exposed for us to see - and one that we can attack with vigour. It packages together neatly all of the hypocrisy, lies and corruption at the heart of Her Majesty's Government and its organs.

Comment from Invictus on Sibel's blog: "We are forever in the debt of those of you endowed with morality, conscience and good soul, whom volunteer to work for civil services, only to have your native goodness used against you, by those entrenched in gvt, whose sole purpose is to maintain and retain power, and NOT serve us, the American Citizenry, their employers."

Description from Brad Friedman: "The exclusive interview lays out the details of what can be described as nothing short of a national security cancer that has metastasized throughout the U.S. government, to the covert monetary, military, and strategic intelligence benefit of our allies and enemies alike."

And Obama's stomping ground, where he's best connected? Chicago.

Turks break Obama's security bubble - http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/turkish-diplomats-cause-scuffle-around-obama/

Joe Lauria - interview - A.Q. Khan network is still active.
Freign minister of India & Ambassador - interviewed by Joe.

Our Guardians and Keepers - the Robot Revolution continues

With a view to increasing the number of more positive posts on this blog, I wanted to share some recent developments in rescue robotics, including work I am directly involved with myself.

It is unfortunate that we in the West (and the Anglosophere in particular) have a perpetually negative relationship with technology generally and robots in particular. Whilst the narrative of a robot/AI takeover has taken deep roots in our culture and thinking, in places such as Japan and South Korea, robots are regarded primarily as friends (and this is despite producing and deploying some frightening capable fighting robots such as the Samsung sentry).

The field of robotics/AI has been advancing at an incredible pace recently - many practicioners in the field are now pointing out that their work is racing ahead of that produced by many science fiction authors. Whilst there is a substantial amount of controversy over how soon we might create a true AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), or whether it is even possible to do so, the other areas of robotics are racing ahead. And, despite the doom-mongers' views on robotic dictatorship, all of the important ethical questions still come down to politics - as in what uses technologies are put, who controls them and for what ends.

Unlike some technologies, such as genetically engineered food or nanoparticles, the important issues in robotics / AI don't particularly require the precautionary principle. Its an area we can forge ahead in with abandon and what will fuck people up isn't the technology itself, but the prevailing systems of power. The latest generation of fighting robots are frighteningly capable. Should we ever again see a massed land battle between two clearly demarcated opposing forces, those with the robots will wipe out any infantry force on the planet (and no, they won't take over, if the operators lose control, they'll just fall over - probably within days, if not hours without servicing). The decisions to kill will still rest with the humans - and this applies even to autonomous and semi-autonomous robots - if they are deployed and given a 'kill zone'; its still the humans giving the orders and occupies the same suspect moral space as dropping napalm or a nuke - a robot will kill just as indiscriminately.

CD & RI

Firemote
http://www.securobot.co.uk/Firemote%20Version%202%20Brochure.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRmWW_nDew8
For people terrified by Daleks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwqGdd2i8dw&feature=related

Or check out the Anna Konda (http://www.sintef.no/Home/Information-and-Communication-Technology-ICT/Applied-Cybernetics/Projects/Our-snake-robots/Anna-Konda--The-fire-fighting-snake-robot/) prototype:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kFpG_xfymg&feature=related

This will be able to work its way into collapsed areas and also - with the right sensors (currently a matter of debate what the most effective means of detecting human casualties is), find survivors.



Ole 'Pill bug' robot
Just a concept at the moment unfortunately - unfortunate because its a really good idea:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=881
- However, see our work on swarm robotics below:

The American Firerob (http://www.americancrane.com/Telerob/Firerob.htm)
(Look away again if you don't like Daleks...)

FFR-1
(http://www.inrobtech.com/ProductsSolutions_Cat1_Prd4.asp)
Particularly impressive is its heat resistance - 400 degrees C, up to 1000 C in short exposures.

Video:
http://inrobtech.com/UserFiles/FFR-1.wmv


Brazil's SACI
http://www.armtecbrasil.com.br/ingles/index.php?pagina=area&area=Defsecu&produto=saci


LUF60

Guardians

In fact - looking at the similarities between some of the fire-fighting robots and Daleks, the daleks do actually look like a good design for fire-fighting (on flat terrain). Who knew?

What happened to David Shayler?

In 1997, David Shayler, a former member of MI5 (the UK's internal "intelligence" "service"), became a whistleblower, claiming to the Mail on Sunday that British "intelligence" "services" had, in 1996, paid money to assassinate Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi.

Thanks to our government's fantastic media-gagging powers, us lowly British proles had to hear about this from other countries' media. The British media was not even able to report that it had been gagged.

Because of the gagging of the British press, Shayler was not able to make a public interest argument, nor have his case heard in full publicly. Interestingly, it was our old authoritarian pals, David Blunkett and Jack Straw who signed the 'Public Interest Immunity certificates'. This is interesting because Straw, and other now senior Labour figures, had almost certainly been on the receiving end of domestic intelligence attention during their supposedly radical past. This kind of targetting of left wing individuals and groups has been comprehensively documented by Robin Ramsay over the years in his excellent journal, 'Lobster'. Straw was also the person to whom Shayler originally sent his dossier of evidence behind the allegations.

Because of cases like that of Katherine Gunn, many people seem to suppose that our "intelligence" agents have whistleblowing rights. They don't.

And if the following piece of reporting from the Australian paper, 'The Age' doesn't send a shudder up your spine, I don't know what will:

The British media widely reported on Monday that lawyers acting for Mr Shayler had accused the government of trying to "intimidate" Justice Moses. But on Tuesday the newspapers - many of which had mounted their own legal case against the application of the certificates - reported simply that the court had heard legal arguments relating to Mr Shayler's trial. "The judge ruled that they (the legal arguments) cannot be reported," The Guardian reported.
....
After the judge's ruling on Monday, several articles detailing Mr Shayler's anticipated evidence - and the government's efforts to keep it secret - were withdrawn from newspaper websites across the country.

Right from Shayler's original breaking of the story, through his flight to France, the attempted extradition and through to 2000 with his trial and conviction, one had the distinct impression that he was seen as a credible whistleblower. Even by the BBC (though, admittedly this was at the time the Tories were just passing the baton to ZanuLab, before it became such an obvious state propaganda machine).

Then something odd occurred.

Shayler got involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Now this covers a great many people, many of whom hold divergent and varying views, with equally varying scholarly or investigatory credentials. He didn't join the 'moderate' end of the group however, perhaps investigating the money trail, or supposed intelligence failures. Instead he dived straight into the 'No Plane' and 'Hologram' theories. He not only became an instant write off for whistleblower-watchers; he was also accused by others in the 9/11 Truth Movement of being a state agitator, who's modus operandi was to discredit the moderate 9/11 Truth elements. Given his background it doesn't seem an unreasonable accusation.

Yet the entire episode seems completely bizaare.

In early interviews Shayler came across as calm, articulate and critical. The treatment he received by the government and level of access he was given by the media meant he could have remained a staunch and credible critic of the government even once he begun moving beyond his particular areas of knowledge or expertise. This is the path other whistleblowers such as Craig Murray have taken.

Yet he chose to align himself with an incredibly derided group, derided even by other people who are furiously anti-government and critical of state and media. When you see the early Shayler, you don't see someone who in a few years, is likely to be promulgating the idea that no planes hit the WTC, only holograms.

Yet it gets worse. Much more recently, he has taken an even more bizaare turn. A few years after joining the Truthers, he then announces, in a very Ickean fashion, that he is the Son of God.

Sidenote on Icke: I met Icke a few years back, shortly after he returned from his U.S. adventures. He began promulgating the lizards idea shortly after this trip, seemingly having picked the idea up from some odd Americans. This, it turns out, is Icke's perpetual pattern. I happen to know three people he has received information and evidence from over the years (all three also have very different perspectives and backgrounds). What was striking is that he repeated almost verbatim, in his books and talks, whatever the person, or people he was spending time with at that moment were telling him. This explains the various phases he has had - flip flopping for example between anti-semitism and repudiation of anti-semitism; it was a reflection of the people who surrounded him at the time.

He came across as someone who was dangerously gullible, who also was able to present these ideas with a tremendous air of authority because of his feeling that he had 'inside connections'.

Here's the problem: Some of the things Icke has said and published are true. (N.B. I'm NOT talking about the lizards here....). I can vouch for three of his sources, though their contributions only cover quite a modest part of his various claims and theories. Yet its easy to discredit the lot in one go and even be wary of being associated with his more plausible claims - I was wary myself of writing the last three paragraphs because of this automatic association.

So it's here I find the comparisons with Shayler quite disturbing. Whilst Icke has been like a kite, bouncing around in whatever direction the prevailing winds took him, Shayler was more like a tree, rooted solidly at first, then suddenly caught by a hurricane, roots ripped out, and tossed into a stinking swamp. I can't help but ask what happened to either, or both men. The messianic turn in particular makes my head hurt. It was like Shayler had his bolt of truth right at the start, shot his load, then came up empty. Icke, not being a whistleblower, was like an empty vessel just waiting to be filled.

Whistleblowers like Murray and Edmonds have certainly been through some seriously tough times. Edmonds was more or less ignored by the MSM whilst her government engaged in an unprecedented level of censorship whilst Murray was purposefully driven out of his job and painted as mentally ill by his previous employers and colleagues. Both have been 'through the wars', and yet managed to come out the other side as prominent, and critically minded thorns in their respective governments' sides. What went wrong with Shayler? What prompted Icke to have a funny turn and suddenly become some kind of "conspiracy prophet"? There's no doubt that life is very difficult for whistleblowers or high profile dissidents after taking their stand, especially in employment terms. Yet as the likes of Murray and Edmonds have shown, its still entirely possible to get one's life together again.

And let's not forget the Panorama episode that almost wasn't from way back in 1998.

The British government has since expanded its powers of censorship - one can only wonder what else has escaped attention in the last, trying, decade. And that's only counting actual cases of 'hard stops' by the government - how much more of a chilling effect has this had more generally? I know I regularly excoriate the media for being useless self-censoring clowns, but when dangerous criminals such as Peter and Paul Griffin can win libel cases against the Guardian and the BBC, despite British Customs holding damning, smoking gun, evidence and the U.S. slapping sanctions on them, I can at least see mitigating factors (that's not an excuse by the way if any of you yellow bellies are reading - do your f**king job already instead of leaving it to us bloggers FFS....)

Libya - the hidden hand of the Griffin family

After returning from a two week holiday where I kept myself in a blissfully news free vacuum, I was delighted to read the Sunday Telegraph's report on Mandelson vis-a-vis Libya. Whilst it was great to see Mandy's mendacity once again cast into the public light, there was a missing piece to the Libyan puzzle not mentioned by the Telegraph:

Whilst I'll leave others to debate the other backroom interests (and there are plenty in Anglo-Libyan relations) behind the decision to release Megrahi (and the reasons for Mandy, Brown et al for lying regarding any behind the scenes negotiations), there is one particular cluster of reasons to wonder at Libya's hidden hand over the British government - that is the tail end of the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network.

In previous posts, and a published article, I have highlighted the British end of the Khan network, a story that forms part of a web of interconnected conspiracies and scandals linking together elements in the governments of the U.S., U.K., Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, Syria, North Korea and even Iran. These 'elements' have been involved at a very deep level with international conspiracies involving nuclear technologies, drugs and money laundering. It is regarding these networks of interests that Sibel Edmonds has recently been able to testify - where they linked to a certain Congresswoman, Jean Schmidt.


Nowhere was the British part of the Khan network more closely connected than with its interests in Libya. And it was Libya's apparent betrayal of the network that led to it being welcomed back to the Western fold. This is an extremely important point that is NOT being discussed in the MSM on the current Libyan/Lockerbie issue. It was the father and son team, Peter and Paul Griffin, through various front companies such as Weargate Ltd, who provided the business end of the UK part of the network to Libya. British Custom's own investigation into the Griffins revealed not only the extent to which Peter Griffin was directly involved in the Khan network, but also specifics, right down to the plans for component workshops, being traded with Libya.

Back in 2003 when Libya 'came in from the cold', it was announced across the MSM that the Anglo-American intelligence effort supposedly monitoring the network had carried out a crippling strike when it raided the BBC China, with components for nuclear weapons manufacture intended for Libya. This was a lie. It was in fact the Libyans who 'blew up' the network, forcing the hand of the Anglo-American services to act; the instigator of the raid was the Libyan regime, not the Anglo-American operation that had supposedly been working against the network (in fact, just monitoring it without interference right back to the 70s (!!!)). Part of the deal was that this would be played to give the West a much needed, and overdue, "victory" in "The War Against Terror" (TWAT) and a reprieve for their apparently underperforming intelligence agencies.


Out of the various links and beneficiaries in the Khan network, Libya had the closest relations with the British side. As such, given that most of the evidence linking parts of the British establishment to the Khan network (Customs, MI5, MI6), was in Libya, this issue had to be dealt with very carefully. With new British businesses, investment and travellers pouring into Libya, there was a substantial liklihood that someone could stumble on evidence regarding one of the Griffin's front companies. Any third party going public with this evidence would lead to a lot of British Officials with a lot of explaining to do. It will be no surprise to readers then to learn that British Intelligence services had already been in negotiations with Libya prior to their "renouncement" of pursuing WMD programmes.

The long and the short of this is that the Libyan regime still has the British government over the barrel of the Khan network. At an instant, the Libyans could reveal the role that British front companies (with the knowledge of Customs and "Intelligence") played in providing Libya with components and know-how for building nuclear weapons. They no doubt seek to maximise this advantage for as long as possible.

Custom's own confidential 2005 report stated:

‘From material available, Peter Griffin appears to be a member of the A. Q. Khan network working closely with B. S. A. Tahir and others. He has a long history of personal and business dealings with Dr. A. Q. Khan and there is evidence to show that for many years, Peter Griffin has been engaged in the proliferation of technology and equipment to Pakistan’s WMD programme...[Griffin] played a hugely significant role in assisting the Libyans in their quest to develop a nuclear weapon.’

Whilst this may not have played a direct role regarding the decision to release Megrahi you can bet that it was very prominently in the minds of the British officials who are in the know about the Khan network and Britain's position within it. Indeed, one of the things I hope to help discover over the coming months and years is exactly who knew (knows) what. I suspect Mandelsnake, with high profile connections that also place him squarely within the drugs and laundering triangle along with the nuclear network (and I suspect, if I can research back far enough, with BCCI), knows a great deal indeed.

It should also be noted, in the context of Anglo-American relations, that the Griffins are now on the U.S. wanted list. They are still at large, and unharrassed in the U.K. (Paul) and France (Peter), and continuing to operate their businesses.

Why?

Background reading: 'Britain Spinning in the Sibel Edmonds Web'

Sibel Edmonds breaks her gag order - and you WON'T hear about this on the BBC

UPDATE (25/08/09): Sibel Edmonds' deposition now available online - get it while you can.

Well the silence from the MSM on both sides of the Atlantic is deafening. You WILL NOT see this on the BBC or any other mainstream outlet, and this is despite the media being explicitly invited.

Sibel Edmonds, the ex-FBI translator, turned whistleblower, is currently giving evidence in a case for the Ohio elections commission, where incubent Congresswoman Jean Schmidt is involved in a libel case against her challenger, David Krikorian. Krikorian alleged that Schmidt had been corrupted by 'Blood money' from Turkish interests.

Edmonds own case has been ongoing throughout the last few years. And despite a few notable exceptions, the MSM has had its head in the sand on her case. She alleged that parts of the U.S. government had been compromised by Turkish, Pakistani and Israeli interests which had also assisted directly in the A.Q.Khan nuclear proliferation network, which provided parts and know-how to North Korea, Iran, Libya and Pakistan.

She was hit with the draconian 'state-secrets privilege' and all of her testimony to U.S. officials was retroactively classified. She's been in a legal limbo since, desperately trying to find ways around the gag order. This is despite several people in the know confirming that she was credible, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) for example, said "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

However, unexpectedly for the FBI and the Department of Justice, Edmonds has been subpoenaed to testify in the Schmidt / Krikorian case, which is ongoing as I write this, with regular updates from Brad Blog. Despite the FBI attempting to stop her testifying, and failing, it seems - according to the citizen journalists present (because no "real" journalists could be bothered) - she is delivering evidence that she has previously witheld as a result of the gag order. Unfortunately she is only able to provide answers to questions she is asked rather than a broad delivery of what she knows, but just what she has said so far has been explosive, naming many currently serving members of the U.S. government and implicating them directly in bribery and espionage on behalf of Turkey.

Sibel is - in effect - able to legally break the gag order on this one, and hopefully this could open the floodgates.

The British angle

British officials and organisations have also taken part in the A.Q. Khan network (and the - related - drugs network also linked to Turkey, but that's yet another long blog post or article....). The British side includes Customs and Excise, MI5, MI6 and from the research I've done it looks like some of the key individuals go back to our old friends, the BCCI.

I wrote an article, published in 'Lobster', no. 56 last year that detailed the British interests involved in the network that Edmonds was describing. You can download the article HERE. I was motivated to take an intense interest in the British angle to Edmonds' case after bitterly noting the complete failure of the British MSM to take the Sunday Times' lead. The Times published an article in January 2008 outlining the main aspects of Sibel's allegations. They put it on the front page and also produced three follow up articles. The remainder of the British MSM, as usual, was about as useful as a one legged man in an arse-kicking contest.

Recently, two of the British nationals named directly as collaborators in the Khan network were father and son team Peter and Paul Griffin, were classified as wanted terrorists by the U.S. They won libel cases several years ago against the BBC and the Guardian, who both alleged that they had links to the network. How they won these cases still boggles my mind as the confidential 2005 customs report into Peter Griffin's activities left no doubt at all that he was hip deep in the network (and had been since the 70s!!!!)

Its a shame the Edmonds case has exploded again right now as I'm about to depart for a holiday in Edinburgh, so apologies for the rough nature of this blog entry (I'll add more links as soon as I have time, right now I'm packing to leave tomorrow though).

As the Griffins are now on the U.S. wanted list, and nothing appears to have been done by the UK authorities, I intend to track them down myself, and logistics allowing, attempt to carry out citizens arrests on them on camera. I want to force the issue, and whilst I'm in Edinburgh I plan to catch up with Mark Thomas who is doing a show for the Fringe, asking the audience to vote on things they want him to try to change. I'm going to ask for his help in tracking down the Griffins.

I'll update this blog post sporadically with updates on Edmonds, as this story develops over the next few days in between trying to relax on holiday.

I'll also be providing all the information I have on the British side of the network and my own research online once I'm back from holiday. Stay tuned!

The Minority Report: Why I am a Climate Sceptic

I used to be a believer.

Up until about two years ago, I had taken the pronouncements of the IPCC and related bodies for granted. I trusted them. This was actually something very out of character for me; I've spent many years analysing the corrupting influences of political and media power, observing how vested interests frequently support one another. I should have known better.

The problem is, and this is a problem absolutely endemic to Western civilisation is this: I just don't have the time to analyse every pronouncement, every potential political or self-aggrandising agenda, every statement of scientific "fact". No one does. I had other things to focus on and, unfortunately, I let myself be led astray by the commonly promulgated idea that climate sceptics were just shills for vested interests. The problem is of course that we are fed an almost constant torrent of bullshit by the mass media. Every goddamn statement has to be analysed carefully if you care about the truth of it. I can quite understand sometimes why some people look at politics and decide to stick their head in the sand, or go insane and shoot loads of people. We're lied to almost non-stop and worse, we generally fund these people to do it. And even critical people can be easily brainwashed if the message is ubiquitous and repeated often enough.

About two years ago I decided to look at what the sceptics were actually saying, and it would be an understatement to say I was shocked. You don't have to be a climatologist to recognise foul play, nor to understand massive fallacies in presented arguments (especially when said arguments are presented by claiming that anyone opposing them is a loon). One area I do know plenty about is politics - and the corrupting work of a confluence of interests is very easy to spot. Where there is any such confluence, one is obliged to adopt immediate scepticism regarding any claims to truth.

I wanted to put together my particular thoughts on this as we are now reaching crunch time. The "Cap and Trade" bill in the U.S. has passed the House and is likely to get through the Senate also (once enough concessions have been made - not likely ones of principle unfortunately). This legislation will come at a truly horrifying economic cost for the Americans. And Britain will be following suit, adding costs to an energy infrastructure that is already close to breaking. And all of this on the back of an economic depression. One wonders if our leaders could possibly be any more criminally insane.

There are a lot of interrelated criticisms I have of this issue. I'll go through most of them in turn:

- The Minority Report

It's actually (not) funny how the behaviour of the "consensus" bullies plays out in a very similar way to the pre-crime in the film namesake. Some of these dirty tricks are outlined by various sceptical scientists in the report itself.

The Senate Committe Minority Report on Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims is by far the best resource I have seen yet on this topic, especially as it is updated periodically (and the number of scientists added to it increases continually). It is potentially your one-stop shop for debating with the climate consensus crew (hereafter to be referred to as "C3").

You can find the summary of the report here.

And the full report itself is here. It looks like quite a weighty document, however in practice you only really need to read to page 97 (out of 255), as the PDF file also contains the previous versions. Also, the URL takes a little while to resolve to the PDF file, so be patient with your browser.

The Minority Report is a source I'll regularly quote below. Do go and read the whole thing though - there's an incredible amount of useful information (and some experiences of the sceptics at the hands of their consensus crew pals will make your blood boil), there are a tremendous amount of links to sources too, which are also regularly updated on the website.

I defy anyone to read the report and come away with the belief that AGW is even likely, never mind a "consensus" view. The C3 probably won't take it seriously though, because they already know the truth.

- "The new Oil".

This alone should give one pause for thought. Traders in the City have begun referring to "Green" investments as "the new oil". Why might that be? Could it be because there is effectively free mana from heaven pouring from the coffers of the taxpayer? Could it be that, in the same way you could attract money to any project by citing the Cold War in the 80s, then T.W.A.T. in the noughties, now (not even out of the noughties), just give something a Greenwash and watch money fly towards you like shit towards a fucking fan. The metaphor is apt because that is exactly what is going to happen to most of this "investment". And you and me get to pick up the tab.

In fact, to call this "Green shit" would be an even more appropriate metaphor. We have diarrhea flying towards the fan, to be spread uselessly in all directions, all the while sucking vital nutrients from the body forced to produce it.

Climate sceptic, chemical engineer Bob Ashworth:

"The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science, never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain. Taxing carbon will have absolutely no beneficial effect on our climate, will hurt the economies of the world, and will be harmful to the production of food because less carbon dioxide means reduced plant growth."

- The "shilling" vested interests are actually behind the consensus now.

Funny, I was recently accused of being a possible shill for big oil. Hahahaha. Oh dear. Let me quote one of the Minority Report researchers:

Chemist, Dr. Kenneth Rundt: "I am only a humble scientist with a PhD degree in physical chemistry and an interest in the history of the globe we inhabit. I have no connection with any oil or energy-related business. I have nothing to gain from being a skeptic."

Quite. And not having anything to do with the Earth sciences myself, being a humble technology researcher (by day, at night I take repeated punches to the head...), I have nothing to gain either. I just like to stick to the old fashioned dictum of my opinions changing with the facts!

The large energy companies aren't going to suffer particularly badly. It's win-win. Where they aren't subsidised by the public purse to make structural changes, they're being given free reign to pass on costs to the consumer. The C3 see this as good because horrifying energy prices are sure to force people to conserve massively. Never mind all of the people pushed into fuel poverty. Add to this the behaviour we saw in the last year, where Hedge funds were moving into Oil, and pushing the price up astronomically - which is likely to be repeated again now with the weakness of the dollar, and short to medium term at least, many conventional energy providers will be sitting pretty if they get their greenwash campaign right.

- The International Geological Congress (the "olympics" of Climatology and Geology):

Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC'

- Authoritative sources turn out to be authoritarian rather than scholarly.


Dr. James ("Hockey Stick Graph") Hansen, Gore's cheerleader in chief has shown himself to be a colossal and disingenuous fraud. Hansen - according to his ex boss Dr. John S. Theon, was an embarrassment to NASA and seems to be suffering a "bad case of megalomania".

Meanwhile, in Blighty, it appears the MET office also can't be trusted: "During a rather bad-tempered interview on Thursday evening... Read more’s Newsnight, Kirsty Wark asked Hilary Benn, the UK Environment Secretary, why local authorities were being told to use the Met Office predictions as a template for infrastructure planning when their report had not been peer reviewed and the authors had postponed publication of information about the methodology that they had used. She also told him that there was considerable concern among other climate scientists about the Met Office’s research."

That's also not to mention the fact that, suddenly, the MET office can carry out astonishing calculations that it claimed last year would require supercomputers one thousand times more powerful than we have at present. Now this is my scientific area, and despite some pretty astonishing breakthroughs in computing technology (many of which are yet to be commercially available), I can state with authority that in the space of one year, we don't have supercomputers that are 1000 times more powerful than their predecessors last year.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency censors internal dissent.

And that's not to mention Gore's behaviour. (See the section, 'The big lie and the big goddamn confluence' below).

- Several recent sceptics were on the IPCC panels

Take note C3 people:
- Environmental physical chemist, Dr. Kiminori Itoh
- Meteorologist Hajo Smit
- Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, Dr. Philip Lloyd
- Professor of the Department of Atmosphere Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, Prof. Rosa Compagnucci
- Former head of Arizona State University's Office of Climatology, Dr. Robert Balling.
- Atmospheric chemist, Dr. Steven M. Japar.

And there are many others who took part in IPCC activities who reported serious foul play.

And, as mentioned in the minority report, the officially recorded number of climate sceptics is now 700 - more than 13 times the number of UN scientists who authored the IPCC 2007 report. Contrary to popular myth, the IPCC report wasn't cobbled together through thousands, or even hundreds of scientists. It was in fact only 52.

-Co-opting of the green movement.

This is a very serious issue that often gets overlooked. Rabid AGW supporters don't realise how much damage they are doing to the rest of the Ecological movement. Do I think there are serious environmental issues for us to address? Sure. Unfortunately because so many in the Green movement are into AGW, and its horribly statist and invasive so called "solutions", there is a seed of truth in the accusation of "Envirofascist". And a lot of people, after being harried and bossed around by the C3 won't have much patience for subtleties elsewhere.

The Greens are being used and many can't seem to see it. It's a bonanza for the corrupt elites who already screw most of us most of the time. Between the bogus "war on terror" and the bogus AGW agenda and the bogus (grand theft) financial "crisis", is there anywhere left for the 'little people' to turn where their lives are not dominated by fear, guilt and increasingly intrusive government diktat and hand in our pockets?

Senator Inhofe reveals how Scientists & Activists believe Global Warming has 'Co-opted' the environmental movement

- The "complexity defence"

Simply dealing with the core of the AGW argument leads to what I call 'the complexity defence'. This alone is enough to scupper the entire argument.

If we get into the meat of the AGW position, something absolutely fascinating happens. It generally follows this pattern:

Stage 1: Your opponent looks at you like you just said you'd stuffed his pet hamster up your arse and shat it out the window. This stage often takes some time to get through as you have to deal with the disbelief that you could possibly challenge the orthodoxy.

Stage 2: Restatement of the "basic facts", leading to Argument 1:

Argument 1: Green house gases, such as CO2, cause a measurable warming effect. Humans have been adding tons of CO2 to the atmosphere for decades, and there is a measurable increase in global temperatures. There is a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperatures. Therefore, human activity is causing the rising temperatures.

Now many sceptical scientists have already pointed out issues with the actual mechanisms that might be involved here. However, we can give the C3 the benefit of the doubt on this and still hang them by their own petard.

They assert not only correlation, but a one way causative relationship between humans producing CO2, the actual level of CO2 in the atmosphere and rising temperatures. This, for many years, has been presented as an upwards, linear relationship.

So, what about the occasions when the correlation fails? This is supposed to be the very heart of the argument, so if say, we had a cooling trend for a sizable period, say around the last 10 years, then that indicates that this correlation is bunk.

This is when we reach....

Stage 3: The complexity argument

Argument 2 to the rescue!
Apparently, because the climate is so complex, indeed it is the "mother of all nonlinear dynamical systems", then other factors come into play, determining the global temperature.

Well, I quite agree with this. Yet, somehow, C3 like to add a silent premise - that human produced CO2 is still the dominating factor to this model. What? So when we see an upwards correlation, it is because of AGW, but when we see a negative correlation (because remember humans are still adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, and in increasing amounts, during these cooling periods), it is because of "complex factors" amongst which AGW still happens to - magically - be the major factor.

So when the earth heats up, it is AGW. When the earth cools down it is AGW.
Right.

Similarly, when ice melts in the arctic it is AGW. And when ice forms in the antarctic it is AGW. Got it?

Never mind all those other factors that you might want to consider if you invoke the "complex system" - Solar impact, Earth's precession, Variations in the Magnetic field, Water Vapour, Sulphur outputs etc etc.

Earth Scientist, Dr. Javier Cuadros: "Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures, drought or torrential rain, tonadoes and hurricanes or changes in teh habits of migratory birds. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight explanation."


- The big lie and the big goddamn confluence

It is crucially important to understand that the C3 lobby represents the confluence of perhaps the most powerful set of lobbies humans have ever seen. Not only are most national governments behind the "consensus" (notably absent China, India and Russia - but they're just "evil" right?), we also have the media, and a large swathe of compromised scientists who's very livelihood depends on the massive amounts of taxpayer funds being siphoned away to fund their research. People like Al Gore, and "Hockey Stick" Hansen have built careers on this. Plus, there are huge, structural interests now coming into place as Western governments are now preparing fundamental restructures of our economy around this mythology. A lot of organisations, including numerous energy companies, have a lot of public money to lose if the "consensus" is broken.

I'm also more than happy to point out how this is like the Nazi "big lie" written even larger. Now normally I would avoid such comparisons. However, really all I have to say is "fuck you" to the C3. I can think of few things more disturbing than the emergence and promotion of the term, "Climate change denier", with its very obvious and intentional parallel with "holocaust denial". Seriously, fuck you guys - this has already resulted in witch hunts and the destruction of the careers of perfectly good scientists.

Ecological modeler, Dr David Stockwell: "..the IPCC is just another review, and an unstructured and biased one at that. Its main in-scope goal is to find a human influence on climate, and the range of reasons for climate change are out-of-scope."

Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, Andrei Kapitsa: the UN IPCC is "the biggest ever scientific fraud" - "A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace....As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact."

Award winning physicist, Dr. Will Happer, Physics professor at Princeton University: "I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly....I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy." [My emphasis]

Princeton University physicist, Dr. Robert H. Austin: "I was taught that any discipline with the word 'science' as part of its title is to be avoided, such as Political Science. Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science."

And, directly from the Minority Report:

Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the
behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was
shocked.”(LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]
[My emphasis]

- The Manhattan Declaration

Never heard of it? That's no surprise! The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change is a vetted list of scientists declaring their scepticism towards the AGW consensus.

This declaration is well worth reading in full - its only a page long, however it makes quite a striking statement, especially as it has been signed by so many. And again, we have a body of scientists much larger than the IPCC disagreeing with the "consensus". I know its not all about numbers, but if you're going to have the cheek to claim "consensus"... well....

I'll finish with a quote from one of the IPCC "traitors" - Dr. Kiminori Itoh: Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

Quite. I hope the Righteous will be happy with their end result - fuel poverty for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) and forever tarnishing science and scientists with the same brush as politicians and investment bankers. Congratulations chaps.

For the Love of a Robot - why there won't be a robot takeover

These kind of accounts are very common, and actually made me get a bit teary when I first encountered them. I found them very touching.

Whilst stories like this are also very common with civilian robots (60% of Roomba owners name them, a third take them on holiday and a substantial number actually clean the floor before the robot to make it's life easier!), its the robot companions in war where the high emotion and fraught nature of the situation really brings it home.

I think they speak for themselves:

'The EOD soldier carried a box into the robot repair facility at Camp Victory, Iraq. "Can you fix it?" he asked, with tears welling in his eyes. Inside the box was a pile of broken parts. It was the remains of "Scooby-Doo," the team's PackBot, which had been blown up by an IED.

' "please fix Scooby Doo because he saved my life," '

'...the continued evolution of human-robot interaction is leading many robot operators to do things like "award" 'battlefield promotions' and 'Purple Hearts' [medals] to their machines...One unit in the 737th Ordnance Company, for instance, called their EOD bot Sgt.Talon; Sgt. Talon, in fact, got promoted to Staff Sergeant and received three Purple Hearts.'

'When one robot was knocked out of action in Iraq, an EOD soldier ran fifty meters, all the while being shot at by enemy machne gun, to "rescue it" '.

'Soldiers who work with damaged robots notice these attachments the most. Jose Ferreira descrived working at the repair yard in Baghdad as less like being a mechanic in a garage and more like being a doctor in an emergency room. "I wish you all could be here and experience the satisfaction in knowing you saved someone's life today. I wish you could see the fear in their eyes when they first walk in knowing that they could walk out with no robot. I wish you could see the smiles and feel the hugs and handshakes after they leave our shop knowing that their 'little Timmy' is ALIVE. Alive and well to go down range one more time." '

'It would walk through a minefield, intentionally stepping on any land mines that it found with one of its feet. Then it would right itself and crawl on, blowing up land mines until it was literally down to the last leg. When the system was put through military tests, it worked just as designed, but the army colonel in charge "blew a fuse"...Describing the tests as "inhuman," the officer ordered them be stopped. "The Colonel could not stand the pathos of watching the burned, scarred, and crippled machine drag itself forward on its last leg." '

From Wallach and Allen's 'Moral Machines' and Peter W. Singer's 'Wired for War'

Immigration and Intelligence - part 2

Following on from my earlier piece, I now turn more attention towards the role of the "intelligence" "services":

Another article, this time published in the Independent, and on the same day as the Times piece (coincidence?) cited in the previous blog post, focuses on the work of MI5 seeking informants in the U.K. - by blackmail.

The long and the short of the article is that MI5 have been accused of seeing "informants" through blackmailing them. Numerous British Nationals have alleged that they were approached by MI5 and told to cooperate otherwise they would be designated as terrorists.

Not only does MI5/6 have form on doing this both inside and outside the UK, it appears in fact to be their regular modus operandi for terrorist related investigations within the U.K. It seems MI5/6 don't mind who they chew up and spit out, especially if defending an innocent person (and a voluntary asset no less), would mean crossing the CIA. Pathetic.

A quote here from a related Independent article highlights my own thinking on the matter:

A spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said: "MI5's entrapment methods are completely counter-productive. We are constantly trying to sell the idea of liberal democracy to young Muslims but when the security services act like this, it makes our job very difficult. Either MI5 are out of control or the Government has sanctioned this kind of behaviour. Either way we would like a full inquiry to uncover whether this sort of behaviour is being backed by the Government."

A question I have to ask is: If the Home Office, with at least some public and overt oversight is so mind-numbingly incompetent - in fact, scarily so - then what of the completely secret, unaccountable "Intelligence" "services"?

It is important to note that one of the reasons that we get to hear about these cases is that even MI5/6 grunts get sick of it and break ranks and brief the broadsheets anonymously:

"[The agents] fear they will be hung out to dry. This is not the first time that field agents have been made to carry the can even when there is a paper trail all the way to the top authorising the action and conduct of the agents," said the source.

They seem to be very bothered by people who are already British nationals, and in many cases born and raised here. The stream of fresh immigrants coming in on student visas via fake institutions though seem to get a free pass. While it is the case that the July 7th bombers were British nationals (though not quite so "invisible" to the "Intelligence" "Services" as we were led to believe), there is a prima facie case for being much more concerned about random individuals who enter the UK in their thousands with no traceable background whatsoever.

I feel obliged to ask what it is the "Intelligence" "services" actually achieve in real terms. Several cases they have gone public with have turned into farcical nonsense, such as the Ricin ring that wasn't and the recent raid on some Pakistanis here on student visas. Whilst I welcome the focus on people entering the country on student visas it seems too little, too late. Just querying the Home Office's CID system (for borders and immigration) in a smart way can yield a lot of information:

An anonymous commentator on Part 1 of this blog confirmed my own experiences and reminded me to note the fact that using the 'CID' system, one would often find the same address being used by many of these people. This was a fairly regular occurrence. Not only that but many would also share family names. So it was clear that many of the suspect educational establishments were being used to help bring entire families into the country. That this simple information never seemed to make it to "intelligence", resulting in appropriate raids and investigations still boggles my mind.

Immigration whistleblower, Steve Moxon, whatever you think of some of his other views, was right on many things where the Home Office is concerned. There is no other way to describe the immigration and borders agency as anything but so reckless, if you were able to truly grasp the extent of it your brain would bleed through your ears. One thing that was particularly apparent was how the organisation appeared to be very responsive to the tabloids. This was another piece of vein-bursting idiocy for me and was probably the final nail in the coffin securing my desire to resign.

There seemed to be a - roughly - three month cycle. For three months caseworkers would be whipped to focus on "quality" - this meant actually spending a more appropriate amount of time on each case. Although in practice this probably amounted to no more than an extra half hour per case, it did at least give the caseworker more time to check the validity of documents and institutions (assuming they had the desire to - there was no real requirement to do this!!). Suddenly a tabloid would report that there was a backlog of 1000s of applications waiting to be processed. Lo and behold, caseworkers were then told to throw "quality" out the window and get as many through as possible, with the most minimal of checks. Applications that I wouldn't spit on would be waved through. In these cycles, caseworkers were expected to process - to completion - an average of 6-8 cases per day. Now just how much time to scrutinise documents and particulars (and in particular, write out for more information) do you think this allowed? Not much - less than an hour per application in fact. And that includes all the time needed to write out and print all the necessary documentation and log the details onto CID.

After a few months of this, another tabloid headline would pop up, screaming (rightly) about lots of inappropriate applications getting through. Back to "quality" again. Rinse and repeat.

Now if you remember I mentioned the list of "approved" educational institutions had gone down from 15,000 to 1,540. Aside from the fact that it is just a tad fucking late to have done this, in what format do you think this - much more comprehensively vetted - list is to be found?

It's in the form of a shared excel spreadsheet.

You read that right. A fucking excel spreadsheet. The possible security of this nation rests on that list. (Oh, and never mind the fact that for years, more than 13,000 dodgy institutions were able to ship people through the system......)

Now I might be revealing too much here. Enough to get me in trouble certainly. In fact officials might want to have a word with me. Well fuck them. I'd welcome it in fact, because I have a few questions of my own.

Let's start with the assessment of other intelligence agencies shall we?

According to one former CIA operative, the UK is "an Islamist swamp". This is so serious that 40 percent of "CIA activity designed to prevent a new terrorist spectacular on American soil is now directed at targets in the UK."

"Britain is not part of the problem, Britain is the problem"

Now, do you think this may have a teeny-weeny bit to do with having - oh - 13,000 odd extremely suspect institutions fast tracking immigration applicants through a system that isn't fit to capture whale sperm?

It gets better. From a more recent piece:

""The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda's best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.....The Americans run their own assets in the Pakistani community; they get their own intelligence. There's close cooperation with MI5 but they don't tell us the names of all their sources." [My emphasis]

So, at risk of snarling eachother's operations, the Americans won't risk revealing their sources to MI5. So we have a foreign power blatantly conducting massive operations on British soil, our major ally, and they are not willing to share this information with us. Could it be because they too have sussed that the British "Intelligence" "Services" and "Borders" and Immigration Agency are not fit to monitor a fucking ant-hill?

Hmmm....as if that wasn't enough, if Her Majesty's government deign to come knocking at my door, I have another tranche of questions to ask them:

The British end of the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network.

In January 2008, the Sunday Times ran a front page story on ex-FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds. It was the first time a mainstream British publication had touched Sibel's story in such a prominent manner. Importantly, Edmonds' testimony not only highlighted some important British links in the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network, the Times also independently confirmed parts of her testimony through their own anonymous intelligence sources. They also did three follow up pieces. Edmonds had originally gone to the Times in frustration at the U.S. MSM's unwillingness to deal with her story. She had promised to reveal everything she knew to any of the U.S. MSM major news outlets, even to the point of seriously risking either prison, or a fatal visit in the night, on the promise that they would air her testimony unedited.

No one stepped up to the plate, so she approached the British media. The Times did a fairly extensive piece of coverage on Sibel's evidence. Whilst this initial article covered material that had already been revealed previously, it was the first time it had such high brow exposure here. I was expecting a flurry of media activity to follow on a Maddie madness scale. I was amazed and couldn't wait to see the rest of the British MSM take up the story and chase down all those juicy leads to British angles.

I was to be bitterly disappointed because other than a couple of minor comment pieces, the British MSM more or less wussed out - again.

This left me determined to fill the gap myself, so I immersed myself into research in the area - specifically the British links, for a year. This resulted in my having an article published on the matter in December 2008, which really only scratched the surface. At some point this year I plan to put everything online so there is a single authoritative source on the British side to the sordid story.

Now here is where it gets interesting. The two most prominent British nationals assisting the Khan network were father and son team, Peter and Paul Griffin. A few years prior to the Times story on Edmonds, the Griffins had won libel cases against both the Guardian and the BBC for suggesting that they were directly linked to the proliferation network.

This was amazing because not only did the 2005 Customs investigation into Peter Griffin confirm, in lurid detail, his direct association with Khan himself and intimate familiarity with the network's activities, but very recently, the U.S. added both Peter and Paul Griffin to the international Terrorist wanted list in association with the Khan network.

And yet, to the best of my knowledge Peter is still sunning himself, unharassed, in France, and Paul is still active in Britain. I find this nothing short of astonishing. I can think of nothing other than the darkest explanations, involving certain people in the British establishment having some serious 'splaining to do.

So, if Her Majesty's government want to chase me about revealing information about our laughing-stock-of-the-world and terrorist's paradise immigration system, well please do. I've got just as many questions for you you bunch of corrupt incompetent fucktards.

This issue incenses me so much I am currently seriously considering tracking down Paul and possibly also Peter Griffin (the former is more within my means) and carrying out a citizens arrest on camera and forcibly taking either or both of them to the nearest police station to face charges of conspiracy and treason, among other things. So - here goes another invite - Peter, or Paul, if you get wind of this you're welcome to take me on for libel. Please. I've got very little to lose. What about you and your establishment pals?


Adult debate on immigration in the UK simply isn't possible. Combining it with discussing the work of the "Intelligence" "Services" is strictly verboten. Not the least because "open borders" morlocks will immediately shut down debate by referring to you as a "right wing reactionary" or other such nonsense. I'm all for open borders at some point in the future. There's a long path between here and there though, including some mighty intractable problems involving economics, politics and demographics that have to be dealt with first. Before even discussing reform of the immigration system people should be clearly aware that it is not only unfit for purpose, it facilitates the entry of criminals and terrorists into the country, whilst our wonderful "intelligence" "services" appear to focus on British nationals, possibly manufacturing a few new radicals along the way.

In the meantime, our "intelligence", "customs and excise" and "immigration" "services" are completely farcical and somehow seem to end up serving the interests of the terrorists rather than those of the population they are supposed to be protecting. Even the dubious American intelligence agencies don't want to be seen hanging around with them any more.

What gives?

Mainstream media justifies its double standards

Anna, who "outed" the writer of the blog "Girl with a one track mind" has just written a justification of her actions, in light of the furore over Nightjack:

"As I found, you take on the bloggers at your own risk"

This girl - and she is a girl - makes some frighteningly authoritarian statements in this piece. I can't comment much more at present on account of being filled with white hot anger over her arrogance and all that is likely to result is swearing and threats of violence.

If you're a blogger yourself, make sure you read this article, this harridan is part of the upcoming new wave of talent, like Patrick Foster, in the media that is currently being nurtured for even "bigger" things. Its a warning of what's coming. This lot are nothing but a convention of shit sucking genetic defectives.

If you have some time on your hands, you could also do a lot worse than reading ex-FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' excellent series, dissecting the U.S. MSM here

Immigration and Intelligence - a view from the inside

Two front page articles caught my eye today, bringing together a number of issues that make my blood boil with eye watering intensity.

They both concern - in their own particular ways - the issues of immigration and the "work" of the intelligence services. I'll go through each article in turn then link them together towards the end.

"Shame Colleges"
First, today's Times front page: "Sham colleges opened door to terror suspects". Now if you aren't already aware of the internal intricacies of our wonderful Borders and Immigration Agency, let me enlighten you. In summary - the agency is not fit for fucking purpose. Having worked there (and resigned in disgust) I can give you a tour de force of the colossal shortcomings and mind numbing idiocracy that it is.

First I'll give you a few tidbits from the numerous articles on the subject in today's Times. Be warned, when you read parts of it your eyes might bleed:

The Times has been given evidence from a database listing every student admitted and every diploma and certificate that was sold. It records how the eight terror suspects and more than 1,000 others were given letters designed to fool the Home Office, Inland Revenue, banks and local authorities into believing they were students.

The implication here is that the documents would have to be pretty impressive to fool such sterling organisations, such pillars of Her Majesty's State, right? Wrong.

The fact of the matter is that it is indescribably easy to "fool" them. Any supposed "checks" are laughable and - often - circular in nature (checking a source of information that is already shoddy beyond belief - like the DfES Register, but we'll get back to that shortly). Take the Home Office for example (by this the Times means the Borders and Immigration Agency). The assessment of official documents from "official" educational institutions goes like this - do they look "kind of" legitimate? Yep. That's it. Even certificates and "official documents" with glaring spelling errors get let through. It gets better - if any one of the British organs of state (lets say either the Home Office, or Inland Revenue) has waved its magic wand over said documents then they're given legitimacy in the eyes of the other organs of state. So if someone casually gives a document a once-over at the Home Office and thinks it looks OK and isn't TOO shoddy, the Inland Revenue will also give it a pass. With me so far?

Now comes the amazing, the incredible, the bread and butter of British intelligence work - the DfES register. It was compulsory that in each application, the Immigration Caseworker checked that the institution applied to by the "student" was on the register. If it was, then all was well. It didn't matter whether it sounded dodgier than a dossier on WMDs, whether the institution couldn't even spell "University", whether it was a course in something like "a BA(Hons) in Puppeteering" (I kid you not), nor did it matter if it had an incredibly unlikely name like any of the following:

- Bradford College of Professional Studies
- Oxford College of Management Sciences (in Manchester)
- Cambridge Colleged of Advance Studies (in Dagenham). (Yes that's "advance", not "advanced" - a very common spelling mistake in the names of these institutions that nevertheless didn't hinder inclusion on the fantastic DfES register).

I queried what the requirements were for being on the register. Apparently the only deal breaker was if it didn't have sufficient fire exits. Everything else was effectively negotiable, many "institutions" never even received an inspection, never mind check the "teachers" were qualified.

What is surely incredible is that so many actual, legitimate educational institutions in the UK, such as Liverpool John Moores University would take any of this shit seriously and allow students to enrol on their courses on the basis of documents provided by these, shadier than Michael Howard, institutions. Try this for size, for example:

Diplomas and attendance records in the name of other colleges were also printed and sold, often to provide a "history" to account for missing years during a student's time in the UK. The men invented the grandly named, Dublin-based Greenford University.

This mythical seat of learning proceeded to accredit Manchester College of Professional Studies with a bewildering range of undergraduate and postgraduate honours courses that its few employees had no authority - let alone the capacity - to teach.

Manchester College of Professional Studies was also affiliated with Blackpool University, again based in Dublin established "under the order of the King of Belgium" and licensed by the Accreditation Council of Higher Education (ACHE).

All of which might sound impressive until one learns that ACHE is based in Wallis and Futuna, and island group in the South Pacific.

Finally, the college also posed as a study centre for the University of Newcastle, which is really the online University of New Castle, incorporated "in the sate (sic) of Delaware", and, like Blackpool University, accredited by a group of South Pacific islands.

Now I ask you dear reader, at which point in the above quote did you begin to experience absolute incredulity? I think if I hadn't worked at this POS institution I would have been so incredulous as to have become unconscious before I even read the last paragraph - having resulted from bashing my head against the desk until I reached the nirvana of Oblivion. Major, well known, Universities have accepted documents validated such as those above for years. For thousands of applicants, who as a result have been able to extend their stay in the UK. Many of these people have been able to extend their stay for a sufficient period of time to apply for citizenship. All on the basis of some incredibly shoddy fraudulent documents.

And it only takes one batch of these documents to get you in. After that, you're laughing.

As the Times articles details, one of the hucksters who set up one of these institutions wrote letters and documents to give himself qualifications. Its even more of a breeze to write fake attendance records and glowing references for your pals from Swat Valley.

Oh, didn't I mention that bit? That's right, through this secure system of assessment hundreds of applicants have arrived, and remained, in the UK who originated in the Taleban and Al Queda hotbeds of North Western Pakistan. And these are just hundreds from this one network of scams that the Times has exposed.

So here's one of the points I really really want to drive home: These kind of institutions, scams and applications were (and probably still are) the norm at the Home Office. < -- Read that again.

I estimate on a good day perhaps one in ten of the applications I dealt with actually involved a British educational institution I knew was legitimate. The rest all had names very similar to those three listed above. Complete with equally laughable documentary evidence.

But it was all OK, the DfES register said it was OK. The Home Office gave its seal of approval. And that was that.

I don't think many people (especially those mentalist "no borders" people) really, truly, realise just how utterly shoddy and mind numbingly incompetent the nation's border control is. I laughed hard when I realised that many people labour under the illusion that the Home Office keeps track of all these applicants. It doesn't. Very often no one even realises someone has overstayed unless that put in a fresh application. Which of course isn't a problem as long as you can stump up the several hundred quid for the visa, your local friendly "institute of advance studies", or "Oxbridge college of professional studies" can just fake all the relevant documentation for you.

Points based system

Supposedly the new system - only just put in place - is much better. The Times refers to a major aspect of this change - the list of valid institutions (they mean the DfES register) -

"At a stroke the number of approved colleges fell from 15,000 to 1,540".

That's right folks. For years and years, the number of dodgy institutions providing a magic carpet for equally dodgy individuals to fly into the country has been approximately 13,460.

Thirteen thousand, four hundred and sixty!!

I could rest my case on that alone.

There's a lot more I want to say (and reveal) on this subject, however in the interests of getting this information out in a timely manner, I'll leave it there for now.

The Path and The Way

Yea unto you I say for it is The Path and The Way. The One True Dictum of the Holy Portly One, Marx, may Peace Be Upon His Name. For his Holy Word is timeless and unchanging.

Followers of THE LORD need no understanding of modern financial systems - for these are the edritch and wicked constructions of mere men. One Unchanging Philosophy to encompass all possible future eventualities is all. Since the passing of our Lord, nothing new exists under the Sun and ALL innovations and changes in social relations were predicted and anticipated by our Bearded deliverer. We have no need to change our opinions when new facts arise, for there are no new facts. OUR LORD has seen and predicted all. Everything that occurs is simply a recapitulation of his teachings.

The instrument of Satan - CAPITALISM - is everywhere and everywhen. Ill defined, vague and mysterious, it evades the gaze of OUR LORD in the hearts of men. Given shape and clear definition only when that definition suits our followers' purposes. The fact that it has many varied definitions in many varied contexts is simply a mark of its true and eternal EVIL.

Yea witness the transubstantiation of the truly pious one's ego: Verily, it is the holy mystery how one's ego can transcend the False Consciousness and Historical Materialism that afflict all who are non-believers. The pious are raised up from this substrate by their Faith. It is at once a veil for non-believers, how a faith in collectivism is combined with the holy trinity of Me, myself and I, and how I AM RIGHT. The wisdom of crowds, like CAPITALISM, is truly evil when it does not fit our preconceived notions.


Yea, the Pious may join OUR LORD in the atheist heaven, where all the calculators go when they die. Ye are commanded to turn the other cheek to naysayers who point out that parts of THE LORD's written commandments contradict one another. Scribbles in The Holy Communist Manifesto only APPEAR to contradict the Holiest of Holies, the Testament of Das Kapital, because they were written through the flawed hands of man. For OUR LORD did sacrifice himself for our sins by sitting on the dole and writing endless manuscripts, suffering so terribly as he was pampered by the very elite who are the agents of SATAN. TRUE BELIEVERS can interpret what THE LORD really communicated, though ineffable, through the power of faith and may cast down any who have not read every single tedious line after tedious line in every single endless monologue after endless monologue as unfit to speaketh ill.



Those evil men who suggest that OUR LORD stole many ideas from the consort of Satan, ADAM SMITH, should have their tongues removed. OUR FAITH guarantees our righteousness in this cause for we have never read An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. We have been told by the Acolytes of the Lord that it is worthless and meaningless and should be consigned to the Memory Hole. We KNOW what it contains without having read it, or the work of Lucifer's followers derived from its false wisdom. Rumours that some apostates have fallen from grace after reading SMITH and finding that he in fact criticises many of the things we fear are FALSE. Followers of THE LORD who have stood, open mouthed, whilst reading the passages of the evil text damning Corporatism have read words FALSELY IMPLANTED. For our one and Eternal Lord was in fact a TIME TRAVELLER, and Satan's Consort, IN FACT, stole ideas from THE LORD, twisting them and mixing them with lies.

For ALL Authoritarian measures are RIGHT and JUST when delivered in the name of OUR LORD. We believe in Collectivist thinking, however WE the pious and followers of the Holy One KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU. The superiority of our Egos over that of the chattel non-believers and less pious is another of the holy mysteries.


Our favoured methods are continual repetition of dogma - said loudly enough and often enough, the incantations of OUR LORD, can cast out even the most single minded demon, causing them to walketh out of the room. Other weapons acceptable in Our Lord's sevice are Ad hominem and argument by association. In trying times, carefully targeted use of the following unholy words can be used to discredit or, in suitably dogmatic company, even destroy enemies of THE LORD: "Tory", "Loon", "Conspiracy Theorist", "Capitalist", "Elitist".

Lo are these methods no more frequently applied than on that giant shoutbox known as the Intardnets. We have come to fear the unregulated and unfettered terror that it is. For it has come to pass that its nature is in line with our mortal enemies. Oh horrors.

We could not possibly contemplate sincere and open debate with the demons - especially in scholarly and peer reviewed journals, as good scholarship is a tool of the establishment. Instead we will produce poorly edited and researched pamphlets and manuscripts. Fear not though brothers and sisters, for we can keep OUR LORD's Orthodoxy alive and intact through only interacting with people who already agree with us on backwater bunker sites where no one dares disagree on substantive points. If persistent demons appear we can easily gather a posse comitatus to strike down the offenders using the holy methods enshrined above and if that does not work then removing their tongues comes very naturally.

In fact we have warriors amongst us who, like our LORD, sit on the dole and churn out thousands of pointless posts on insular internet forums, lecturing a small group of people who already largely agree with us. Taking succour from the state while agitating for its destruction is a terrible burden to bear and these brothers are truly saints to the cause.

When there are no other enemies to strike down we pious and Righteous are compelled to turn to one another. For the Lord dictated that, as a property of evil is that it eventually turns in upon itself, all who seek succour in the teachings of the Lord must fight one another until those who are the most RIGHTEOUS and RIGHT win and ascend to OUR LORD's knee. Others, the faithless, who engage in such internecine warfare are engaging in SOCIAL DARWINISM, those of the faithful however, who fight one another over tedious differences are carrying out the Good Lord's work. We become UNLIKE our enemies by becoming just LIKE them. It is truly cunning wisdom. And ALL of our faults can be lain at the feet of the beast of CAPITALISM, for we can take no responsibility for ourselves.


Our enemies, though they appear to regularly share the same concerns and interests as us, are naught but DECEIVERS. Those unlike us can be identified most often with seductive whispers about the greatest sin - PROPERTY. Whilst we have been cast down into the pit of sinners, all of us have original sin - wearing flesh suits, we the faithful struggle with and bear the burden. For although we must BEAR the burden of property, suffering as we do, in order to satiate those evil, hated biological mechanisms, we do so WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUE WORD OF THE LORD.

For PROPERTY is in itself evil, and when also acquired directly through the blood, sweat and tears of effort, through the hated body, is therefore EVIL SQUARED. And when exchanged for tokens of mutual value with one another, becomes EVIL CUBED. Our enemy CAPITALISM therefore prospers through the despicable mechanisms of being born into a human body, creating value with one's efforts and exchanging PROPERTY with one another with tokens which - whatever form they take - will always be the work of the devil.

Eventually the most pious and just will wear shirts made of their own hair. For we can alleviate the burden of the original sin of PROPERTY through discerning the difference between de jeur and de facto property. There are NO awkward questions, or tricky issues for the faithful in considering this evil for we simply turn the other cheek once more. There is NO slippery slope between 'de facto' and 'de jeur' because we sayeth so. If all arguments fail us we can reinvoke our faith in THE COLLECTIVE which will spontaneously produce the RIGHT answers for us in the future, so we meek and humble followers need not answer these questions now. Property is only OWNED temporarily by those who are using it. Therefore when I sleepeth I have no property. And verily there are NO thieving bastards, because all belong to the collective and it is good.

So speaketh the Prophets of the LORD. Aperson.

*('Amen' is sexist and therefore FORBIDDEN).