/** Tools */

30 April 2009

When fascism comes to town....

It will probably look a little something like this.

The expression, "a captive audience", redefined.

Welcome to the prison ship.

Edit: Compare and contrast (via amtte).


McGonagall said...

We have to give up our liberty to protect our freedom.

Edo said...

Well, it's not like we've been saying this wasn't coming. 'Fear' has a lot to answer for, for without it, none of this would be happening.

steve said...

Can anyone give some context to these horrible images?

The Antagonist said...

@Edo: Whose fear? Yours, mine, or the corporatist interests of the State and its bodies of armed men?

@Steve: It could well be part of that thing that Gordon BrNWO, Barack Obama (from Berlin?!) and all the rest of them refer to as the New World Order.

Despite ruling class types harping on about this NWO to the point of irritation and nausea, Erasapedia still claims this New World Order business is a 'conspiracy theory'.

So that's OK then.

The Antagonist said...

We have to give up our liberty to protect our freedom.

Yes, that's it!

Amazing the mess that can be created when words lose their meaning.

Edo said...

I'm talking the kind of senseless fear that's not based on anything tangible, you know that.

Man is born with only two innate fears; that of falling, and that of loud noises. All the rest are prescribed by social conditioning of some sort, be it familiar, schooling, the media or government propaganda. It's precisely this fear I refer to when I say it's got a lot to answer for.

Anonymous said...

More tosh from the Antagonist. Doubtless you need reminding that there is a serious problem with some of our youth and knife crime. Sad though it is to see police at school gates, it's hard to see how else to stop knives being carried into schools.

Juxtaposing those pictures with one of Joanna Lumley wielding a kukri is amusing, but entirely out of context, as you well know.

Of course, it presents you with the ideal opportunity to suggest the double-standards in our society, but there isn't a problem with Lumley and knife crime.

I would normally expect to see you heap praise on any person who fights for the rights of people disregarded by our government on these pages, as Lumley has done. But because she is a rich white woman and those she is helping happen to be soldiers, your silence is predictable. Go on Antagonist, see if you can bring yourself to say she has helped some people out whom our 'fascist' government has neglected. I'd love to hear it...

Talking of 'fascism' (a term you throw around with the abandon of a child with a toy) do a little research, comrade, and you'll discover that both Mussolini and Hitler were socialists. Not to mention Stalin, Mao and all the other squalid little regimes around the world that have caused the world so much suffering. They've probably notched up a good 250 million murders at least between them. Talk about state oppression!

By the way, I keep meaning to ask you something: do you believe we are secretly ruled by illuminati lizards living on the moon?

DE said...

The kids are preparing for the new normal.

The Antagonist said...

The kids are preparing for the new normal.

It certainly appears that way.

Tweet: When #fascism (& swine flu) visits, police will parade the streets with loud-hailers ordering you to lock yourself in & up http://tr.im/kgei

Anonymous said...


Re: The Gurkhas's right to remain

Firstly the 'right to remain' issue seems to have been a bait and switch with the more important issue of equal rights for currently serving Gurkhas and an equalisation of pensions payments. An issue affecting upto '30,000 Gurkhas and 6,000 widows'. See BBC, February 2002 and The Independent, July 2008The recent increase only came about because it corresponded to an increase in pension payments payed out by the Indian Army.

Secondly and thirdly the place in society that has been envisioned for them and whether their right to remain is tied to playing such a role is cause for concern:

Police want to hire Gurkhas as crime fighters

Mark Townsend, defence correspondent
The Observer,
Sunday November 2 2008

Scotland Yard will urge the government this week to grant Gurkhas the right to remain in Britain as the Metropolitan Police seeks to recruit them in its latest attempt to tackle violent crime.Senior commanders believe the Nepalese soldiers, who have served with distinction in the British army, would make ideal police officers, and that their discipline, strength and fearlessness would prove crucial to combating the burgeoning threat of knife and street crime.

Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley will tell Home Office officials and MPs on the Commons Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday that agreeing to offer thousands of Gurkhas settlement in the UK will provide an invaluable resource. 'Gurkhas would make exceptional members of the police service. Many are multilingual in languages from the Indian subcontinent, highly motivated, loyal and an excellent way of diversifying our workforce,' he said.

Senior Met officers have also revealed that previous attempts to recruit Gurkhas have been ignored by the armed forces.

The Gurkhas' courage will be highlighted hours earlier when five soldiers from the 1st Battalion, Royal Gurkha Rifles, are presented with the Military Cross at Buckingham Palace for bravery in Afghanistan.

The High Court last month ordered the government to recognise a 'debt of honour' to the men by reconsidering a refusal to allow more than 2,000 off them permission to live in Britain because they retired before July 1997.

Anonymous said...

Some tosh from a supposed supporter

Edwin Bramall: Don't be sentimental. We have treated the Gurkhas well

Sunday, 26 April 2009

The Independent

In common with anyone who has ever served with the Gurkhas, I think they are marvellous, the very best and most loyal of fighting men. Some years ago, I became involved in a campaign to help the Gurkhas and some people, – quite wrongly and over-generously – credited me with having done a lot to save them. In any event, I would like to think I could always see myself as a loyal supporter of theirs. I am sure, too, that Joanna Lumley admires them every bit as much as I do, and I admire the conviction she has brought to bear in defending their interests. But I have to sound a note of caution. The deal the Gurkhas have had from the government is nothing like as bad as some of the newspaper headlines ("Gurkhas betrayed" etc) will have you believe.

Apart from their outstanding abilities in the field, for a long time the Gurkhas, to put it at its baldest, offered the British govermnment another advantage: they cost less than their British counterparts. They were recruited on the understanding that they would remain Nepalese citizens. They signed up in Nepal, agreed to take their release in Nepal and were paid their pension in Nepal. And a very good pension it was, index-linked and paid after 15 years' service (rather than 21 for a British soldier). This made them well-off in their home country. They had still further support from the Gurkha welfare Trust, to assist in the event of landslides or other misfortunes. It was an arrangement that suited both sides admirably.

The complication comes when we consider the claims of some Gurkhas to live in the UK. In September they won the legal right to retire in the UK. This went against all previous assumptions. They have never had any claim to live here, and that was never the deal under which they signed up. In 1997, most of them chose to switch over to new, UK army rates of pay, a decision the British government honoured. But the result is that those who want to live here cost the Treasury a good deal more than in the past. Surely, this week of all weeks, we need to recognise that such expenditure must have its limits. The Government's decision last week to insist that Gurkhas should have served in the army for 20 years is an attempt to keep sight of reality. It is only recently, when some have seen how comfortably off some retired Gurkhas can be living in the UK, that others have asked to come. Yet this was never the deal at all.

It has been said that we are only talking about a handful of people – a hundred or so. But the government, which has to live in the real world and try to make the books balance, says the cost could be as much as £1.5bn. That sum, let me remind you, would have to come out of the defence budget.

As I say, I have a greater regard for the Gurkhas than anyone. It is not for no reason that they hold a special place in the nation's feelings. I would be mortified by the thought that we might have let them down. Yet I am confident that, rather, we have treated them with fairness and generosity. And I am also confident that a great many serving Gurkhas regard this recent activism as "trade unionism" that discredits their soldiers and is in any event counterproductive.

I suspect that if I didn't know the facts, I would feel as strongly as some of the celebrities who have spoken so vehemently about the Gurkhas. But the facts, not sentiment, are what needs to be considered here.

Lord Bramall was Chief of the Defence Staff from 1982-85, and a colonel with the 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles from 1976-86


steve said...

Why is it that all people called 'James' are wankers?

The Antagonist said...

James Blunt: Man or rhyming slang?

Anonymous said...

Oh so we're going to resort to childish insults are we? Surest sign that you've lost an argument...

The Antagonist said...

Nice try, but apologies 'comrade', you lost the argument opening with the 'childish insult' question, "do you believe we are secretly ruled by illuminati lizards living on the moon?".

Anonymous said...

Oh no, I think it's a reasonable question. It wouldn't surprise me if you did believe in the lizards, after all you believe in all this New World Order stuff, so you're only one small step away!

Saying that all people called James are wankers though is definitely childish and I'm very deeply offended by his nameist remarks.

Bridget said...

Trotsky Fascism What it is & How to Fight it:

"Of course, in France, as in certain other European countries (England, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries), there still exist parliaments, elections, democratic liberties, or their remnants. But in all these countries, the same historic laws operate, the laws of capitalist decline. If the means of production remain in the hands of a small number of capitalists, there is no way out for society. It is condemned to go from crisis to crisis, from need to misery, from bad to worse. In the various countries, the decrepitude and disintegration of capitalism are expressed in diverse forms and at unequal rhythms. But the basic features of the process are the same everywhere. The bourgeoisie is leading its society to complete bankruptcy. It is capable of assuring the people neither bread nor peace. This is precisely why it cannot any longer tolerate the democratic order. It is forced to smash the workers and peasants by the use of physical violence. The discontent of the workers and peasants, however, cannot be brought to an end by the police alone. Moreover, if it often impossible to make the army march against the people. It begins by disintegrating and ends with the passage of a large section of the soldiers over to the people's side. That is why finance capital is obliged to create special armed bands, trained to fight the workers just as certain breeds of dog are trained to hunt game. The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery.

The fascists find their human material mainly in the petty bourgeoisie. The latter has been entirely ruined by big capital. There is no way out for it in the present social order, but it knows of no other. Its dissatisfaction, indignation, and despair are diverted by the fascists away from big capital and against the workers. It may be said that fascism is the act of placing the petty bourgeoisie at the disposal of its most bitter enemies. In this way, big capital ruins the middle classes and then, with the help of hired fascist demagogues, incites the despairing petty bourgeoisie against the worker. The bourgeois regime can be preserved only by such murderous means as these. For how long? Until it is overthrown by proletarian revolution."

Anonymous said...

Sorry Bridget, but this is way passed its sell-by date.

"The bourgeoisie is leading its society to complete bankruptcy. It is capable of assuring the people neither bread nor peace."

I'm not sure who in this country isn't capable of feeding themselves. On the contrary, the supposedly exploited working classes have homes, cars, holidays, flat-screen TV's, Sky packages, you name it! Capitalism has brought down the class sytem in this country like nothing else has. There's still a way to go, and there will always be inequality, but as today's mantra has it- 'equality of opportunity'- this will be based on what you can offer to society and not in which class you have had the fortune or misfortune to be born in. In any case, as the working class makes up the majority of people in the country and is therefore the biggest market, it would be fundamentally nonsensical to keep them in poverty, unable to feed themselves or buy anything. It was the prejudice of the class system that did that, the capitalist system provides a way out for those who are prepared to work for it.

"That is why finance capital is obliged to create special armed bands, trained to fight the workers just as certain breeds of dog are trained to hunt game."

Who are these special armed bands trained to fight the workers? This may have applied to Russia a hundred years ago, but I really don't understand how you can apply this crap to how we live now.

I know that you and your ilk are almost willing the State on to exploit and divide the people, because then it would prove you right and give you support, but I'm afraid it simply isn't happening. That's why you lot have to drown your misery in reading outdated Marxist theory in the hope that one day what your hero said would happen will actually happen. It's what you live for. (By the way, Marx would've had a little more respect for the system in which he lived if he had bothered to go out and get a job rather than sponging of his mate Engels).

I'm still waiting for a reply to my question, here it is again: If people are so exploited by the system, why don't they VOTE AGAINST IT? Too busy sunning themselves in Ibiza to care, I would hazard to guess.

P.S. Here's an interesting little article for you all to read. I'm sure Comrade Antagonista will find it particularly enthralling, given his penchant for conspiracy theories.



Bridget said...

James I went to the link you posted and can only say if that's where you get your understanding of history it explains much about the flawed arguments you have made here.

Trotsky on Fascism (linked in my last comment) wrote in 1932:

The movement in Germany is analogous mostly to the Italian. It is a mass movement, with its leaders employing a great deal of socialist demagogy. This is necessary for the creation of the mass movement.

How prescient was his analysis?

On 2nd May, 1933, Adolf Hitler ordered the Sturm Abteilung (SA) to arrest Germany's trade union leaders. He then gave Robert Ley the task of forming the Labour Front (DAF), the only union organization allowed in the Third Reich.

A pay freeze was introduced in 1933 and this was rigorously enforced by the Labour Front. Wages were now decided by the Labour Front and compulsory deductions made for income tax, and for its Strength through Joy programme.

The Labour Front also issued work-books that recorded the worker's employment record and no one could be employed without one.

Fascism was and is the triumph of finance capital over the working class.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and I notice your analysis is lifted word-for-word from www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk. I can only say if that's where you get your understanding of history it explains much about the flawed arguments you have made here.

Anonymous said...

And I'm still waiting for a reply to my question.... yawn.....

Wonderboy said...

re "When facism comes to town..."

They'll probably sprinkle a little of this in there too.

The Antagonist said...

And maybe a bit of this too:

Third of Met riot officers investigated in last year

547 separate allegations have been made against territorial support group officers

* Paul Lewis
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 May 2009 23.25 BST

A third of the Metropolitan police's unit of specially trained riot officers have been investigated for alleged misconduct over the last year, according to figures.

More than 280 officers at the Met's territorial support group (TSG) had complaints made against them by members of the public prior to the controversial policing operation of last month's G20 protests.

Scotland Yard said there were 547 separate allegations against TSG officers, of which 29% related to serious and sexual assault. None of the complaints, which were investigated by the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, have so far been upheld.

The figure will add to mounting concern over the conduct of the Met's 730 TSG officers, a unit who operate in mobile squads in some of the force's most challenging operations. TSG officers combat serious public disorder, carry out anti-terror arrests and police public order events such as a large demonstrations.

Two TSG officers were suspended for alleged assaults at the G20 demonstrations and one has been questioned on suspicion of the manslaughter of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson. The second, a sergeant, was suspended after footage showed him striking protester Nicola Fisher.

Yesterday's figures showed that more than 130 complaints are still under investigation.

MPs openly on the take and make, farming out billions to banks, with violent thugs for polis in support.

If looks it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....

Anonymous said...

Just a thought, Ant, but perhaps some of those allegations are false? I mean we've all heard of women being arrested and crying rape. We've all heard of black people being charged with a crime and claiming racism. I'm sure there's plenty of corrupt scumbags in the Met, but one third of them being criminals sounds a little unlikely, doesn't it Ant? Let me know your thoughts on this conspiracy.

The Antagonist said...


Anonymous said...

Yes, the truth is a little tiresome. Much less exciting than making stuff up.

Antipholus Papps said...

as today's mantra has it- 'equality of opportunity'- this will be based on what you can offer to society and not in which class you have had the fortune or misfortune to be born in.'James' is Tony Blair and I claim my five pounds!

Anonymous said...

No you lose five pounds you capitalist pig.


stef from south island said...


that line about believing that we are ruled by moon-based illuminati lizards was really funny in a totally relevant kind of way

I haven't seen anyone come out with anything like that before

did you think of it all by yourself?

stef from south island said...

"I'm still waiting for a reply to my question, here it is again: If people are so exploited by the system, why don't they VOTE AGAINST IT? Too busy sunning themselves in Ibiza to care, I would hazard to guess."

for what it's worth, and I doubt it's very much, as you clearly don't give a toss about the answer, as it happens quite a few people have over the years

which is why organisations like the CIA exist

sticking to the subject of voters a little nearer to home in the UK, corrupt false choice party politics and corporate controlled media have done an excellent job of baffling people with bullshit

as has the recent credit boom which suckered an awful lot of people into thinking, temporarily at least, that they were a lot better off than they actually were

and all this chucking of words like 'socialist' and 'fascist' around can confuse the issues somewhat

Much of the time use of a politically neutral term such as 'totalitarian' or 'authoritarian' gets nearer to the mark without confusing the argument with ideological baggage

Scanners in schools and bus stops are not intrinscially fascist per se

though fascists undoubtedly get a hard on from the prospect of deploying then

still, that's all by the by, let's get back to the really, really funny stuff such as pathetic attempts to conflate belief that class interests are sometimes pursued with deliberate intent with believing in space aliens

too, too funny...

UCL Exam Board said...

OK so exam season is in full swing and this year's politics paper is a tough one. Conspiraslexics are allowed an extra hour for mental blockages they may experience in providing a direct answer to a direct question.

Time allowed: 4 hours.
You must answer BOTH questions.

1. In the UK there exists a wide range of political parties representing a variety of different ideologies. These include socialism, liberalism, nationalism, anarchism, Euro-scepticism, conservatism, and environmentalism, among others. Assuming that the 'system' in which the people of the UK live is exploitative and oppressive, explain why the exploiters and oppressors have not been removed from power by the exploited and oppressed by way of:
i. the vote entitled to them.
ii. uprising or revolution.

(50 marks)

N.B. You may NOT:
a)Infer in your answer that the entire UK electorate is gullible and half-witted compared to yourself and lacks the intelligence or mental capacity to understand the nature of the society in which they live.

b)Answer with reference to foreign intelligence agencies and/or extra-terrestrial entities.

c)Blame it on the Jews. (N. Kollerstrom receives an extra two hours for this question).

2. Explain the reasons why so many people from around the world would want to come and live under such oppression and exploitation.

(50 marks)

N.B. You may NOT:
a)Claim that they are to be used for cheap labour. You will notice around you in the exam room that around half of the students sitting this paper are non-white.

Remember that exam markers reward clarity and a direct approach to answering the questions.

Stef said...

On re-reading my last post I'm having real trouble finding any reference to Jews or Foreign agencies (Earth based or galactic) distorting the UK political process

which suggests to me that you are the kind of character who feels the need to attribute false, 'straw man' ideas to other people in a debate so that you might, just, be able to scrape a confused draw, maybe

As they seem to prefer debating with themselves in order to secure their preferred outcome, there's not much point in engaging in discussion with characters like that is there?

Succint enough?

You do however continue to be very, very funny and if the Vikings were still around today they would no doubt compose an epic saga extolling your hysterical exploits

Stef said...

There is actually the kernel of an interesting question here about the flawed nature of democracy and how it is that, yes, a siginficant number of people can be lured into voting against their own long term self-interest

This is a question which has vexed political philosophers going back at least as far as Plato

but, fuck it, why waste your time discussing dull old stuff like that when you can spend your time erecting and knocking down scaly, circumcised straw men, eh?

UCL Exam Board said...


Your paper is an admirable (if somewhat misplaced) attempt to come to terms with a difficult subject.

Unfortunately, you have failed to address either of the questions asked and, although your allusion to Plato and the wider philosophical conundrum of democracy scores you some marks, this only highlights your tenuous understanding of the subject which is at best scant, and at worst indicative of a lack of sufficient revision.

You are reminded that students may convey any opinion whatsoever in their answers, provided that opinion is backed up by a convincing argument. Your failure to do so reveals that you are clearly not in possession of anything resembling an argument. Next time, please remember to answer the questions.

Score: 39% (fail).

"There must always remain something that is antagonistic to good". Plato.

SOAS Exam Board said...

Students and faculty staff are advised that they may be disqualified and/or dismissed for ANY ONE, ANY COMBINATION of, or ALL of the following indiscretions:

A) Being James while pretending not to be James
B) Pretending to be from the University College London Exam Board when instead they are rather more likely to be from the spooky School of Oriental and African Studies
C) General sock-puppetry antics of no tangible worth, which add nothing to the conversation and from which nothing of any use can be learned.
D) Utilising faculty facilities for the purposes of the offences outlined in A, B, or C.

UCL Exam Board said...

Talk about Orwellian! Can you tell what brand of cigarette I'm smoking as well? It can't be long now until the bands of armed men march into the building to gun me down!

You're almost right, but I'm actually a UCL student using SOAS' spookily quiet facilities. Keep up the surveillance work, though, there's a government/illuminati work placement waiting for you once you've passed your re-takes!

Anonymous said...

Can't any of you deluded idiots answer my questions? I mean for Christ's sake, I have an arm full of fucking straws here. Am I defying your sense of reason Antagonist? Or does your sense of reason defy you from answering a straight question?

Characteristic #3 of Conspira-quackery:

"3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make."

Surely we have to separate the wheat from the chaff here, hey Ant? Isn't it time we heard a reasoned response from the long-dark-haired one? Or has he realised that his whole world is built on fallacy?

The Antagonist said...

^ James said...

Oh so we're going to resort to childish insults are we? Surest sign that you've lost an argument...

Anonymous said...

Dear Atangonist, please don't feed the spooky troll.

Unrepentant Conspiraloon said...

"James": Conspira-quackery? Why did you stop using the term "conspiraloonery"? Is it because it lost its power to defame? Shame that, eh?

What are people who use intimidation to push the state-sanctioned-conspiracy-theory onto people who "only have 6 readers"? Conspiranobs? Conspirafascists? Conspiraspooks?

Naah, I think I like conspiragoon

Unrepentant Conspiraloon said...

Oh and while I'm here, I have a very easy question for the MPD-afflicted conspiraGoon:

When did you stop beating your wife?

Anonymous said...

Entertaining stuff guys, but still no answers!

"To confront ideas that radically alter our perception of the world is one of life's most unsettling yet liberating experiences."

But you're not confronting them Ant!

Unrepentant Conspiraloon said...

"James" - really simple question for you, and I think you understand why it's being asked very well:

When did you stop beating your wife?You conspiragoons are always here with the same tactics. So personal. So hateful. So hypocritical. So abusive. So mocking.

So transparent.

Anonymous said...

When did I stop beating my wife? I don't understand, please explain.

Unrepentant Conspiraloon said...

"James": You still haven't answered the question...

Anonymous said...

I really don't know what you're on about mate. Come back when you can make some sense.

Unrepentant Conspiraloon said...

"James": I'm not your mate, never have been and based on your behaviour on this blog, will never be.

As for making sense, you come here and attempt to intimidate and abuse my friends, which makes you troll-like and quite likely, a conspiragoon. Far be it for me to call you names though, I will define "conspiragoon" for you so that you can either confirm or deny the label.

You claim to know what happened on 7/7 (let's stick to that one, shall we) but as far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong, there was never an inquiry and the results of the ongoing investigations have failed to link a single person to 7/7, other than, quite conveniently, those four men who are now unable to testify.

Now I for one am quite prepared to accept the story (remember, it is just that, in the words of the government, it is the "official narrative") at face value if it made any sense. A lot of it doesn't make sense. I do in general trust the system. I don't in general, believe in conspiracies, but I do believe that the government and the state apparatus is perfectly capable of lying to us and has done, time and time again.

Conspiragoons (those people who defend the official narrative, resorting to name-calling of those who have a healthy cynicism of the state and media apparatus when they smell a rat) defend anti-conspiracy, i.e. chaos, with a vehemence that goes far beyond rational and respectful discourse.

Conspiragoons are bipolar. There is the government official narrative, to which they stick as if their lives were dependent on its veracity) and there is everything else. And you conspiragoons are sinister enough to label anyone who distrusts the official narrative with a number of unsavoury terms, including variations on lizard-lover, anti-semite, holocaust-denier, ufo-nut, crackpot, delusional, insane (I find the last three particularly scary, given Solhenitzyn's experiences).

The world is not so straightforward and it is not bipolar. It is not the world that Bush believed in or Blair believed in. "Them or us". Human beings accept variety as the spice of life. Conspiragoons do not. Your paradigm is bipolar. "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists".

So "James", please tell me, when did you stop beating your wife?

paul said...

I am heartened that someone is brave enough to stand up and say that everything is just as it should be, apart from the conspiraloon menace, of course.

Anonymous said...

Dear Unrepentant Conspiraloon,

Thank you for your willingness to engage with me on some of the issues raised in my questions, which, incidentally, remain unanswered. I am now resigned to the fact that Conspiraloons are unlikely to ever be able to answer direct questions which may undermine their warped view of the world. It is, after all, a religion we are dealing with here and blind adherence to religion is, in the words of your mentor, "the opiate of the people". Anyway, more on that later.

I will deal with your points one-by-one:

1. It is true, I have abused your friends on several occasions, but then I have been called 'wanker' and 'Tony Blair'. The second of these I find particularly hurtful.

2. If you define 'intimidate' as asking a challenging question, then yes, I suppose I am guilty of that too. I would suggest 'humiliate' as a more appropriate verb though.

3. 7/7. Ah, yes, the juicy stuff. If memory serves me right, Mohammad Sidique Khan recorded a charming video of himself explaining what he was about to do and his reasons for doing it. That would appear to me to be evidence, unless you believe someone was holding a gun to his head, in which case he deserves a posthumous Bafta for his acting talent. I would suggest that the four men who are, in your words, "conveniently unable to testify" cannot do so because, logically, the act of suicide bombing involves the suicide of the bomber. These people do not leave behind a paper-trail of clues, information, accomplices and so on because generally they have no desire to, er, flee the scene.

4. "I do in general trust the system. I don't in general, believe in conspiracies." We are in agreement there! If you would care to look at Ant's version of events concerning the bus bombing (which, curiously, seems to be missing now), you will, or would have, found quite the most astonishingly lazy list of paranoid assumptions ever to have graced these pages. By looking at a bunch of photographs, our man Ant managed to produce an entire narrative of his own about what 'really' happened that day. I found it fascinating to read, because, at least from a psychiatrist's point of view, it had all the hallmarks of a delusional obsessive. Forgive me, then, if I find the "official narrative" a little more convincing. When delusional obsessives come together en masse on the internet, they form a religion, devotees of which are known as 'truthers'. These people then prey on impressionable, confused and gullible people in much the same way as Scientologists do.

5. By calling me a 'conspiragoon', you are resorting to the same labelling that you criticize me for using. The world is not 'bipolar'.

6. Alexander Solzhenitsyn had quite a lot more to go on than you lot! You have chosen a very poor example there. He lived in a country where approximately 60 million of his countrymen were murdered by the State. Dare I say it, ahem, a communist state. He had evidence, you do not. I am therefore justified in calling you delusional. The anti-Semitic bit was a reference to your (former) honorary member Nick Kollerstrom, who suggested Auschwitz was something akin to a Butlins holiday camp. R.I.P. Nick.

7. I do not believe that the world is straightforward or 'bipolar'. I am here to criticize such ludicrous statements as this (under the heading of 'Reason'd Tweets'):

"Is the Torygraph-led campaign to discredit MPs over expenses part of an agenda to institute a more dictatorial method of government?"

I mean you couldn't make it up. Oh shit, I forgot, you do!

8. I still don't understand this whole wife-beating thing, please explain.

Anonymous said...

James...to respond to your point on the London bombings of July 7th 2005:

Where in the video does Khan make reference to committing suicide? If he does, how does that prove he did everything stated in the official narrative? What train did he board into London that day? Where is the complete CCTV footage?

The irony is you accuse others of believing in fairytales while providing no supporting evidence for your own assertions.

I would also like to draw your attention to this request:


Bridget said...

"When fascism comes to town..." it will also take on an anti-Muslim face and probably look a bit like this:


Anonymous said...

Hi Anon.,

"Our words are dead until we give them life with our blood".

"Until we feel security, you will be our targets".

He also said, "I'm sure by now the media's painted a suitable picture of me. This predictable propaganda machine naturally will try to put a spin on things to suit the government and to scare the masses into conforming to their power and worth-obsessed agendas".

The Antagonist IS Mohammed Siddique Khan !!! The ultimate conspiracy!
Don't get any ideas Ant. But if you do, please make sure you directly incriminate yourself in the video so we won't have any trouble with conspiraloons afterwards.

Bridget said...

@ James

Where are the 'martyrdom videos' of Hasib Hussain and Germaine Lindsay?

Unrepentant Conspiraloon said...

Hi "James",

The words on that video barely constitute even circumstantial evidence. That video would not serve as proof in any court of law. Who are you trying to kid?

Why are you so interested in a blog with "only six readers". Surely, you can safely ignore the conspiraloons?

I'd get to you on your earlier points if you hadn't made so many ridiculous assumptions and been so patronising. I never called you Tony Blair though and anyone who did was way out of line.

Suggest all you like. When you make personal references about someone who prefers anonymity, even if those facts are publicly available, you are trying to unsettle the person through a process of intimidation. Stick to the topics instead of your ad hominem crap and we can have a discussion. Otherwise, don't complain when someone uses entirely appropriate rhyming slang for you. Your entry was with gloves off and you want kid gloves treatment? Hypocrisy!

I still don't have any evidence that the four implicated men committed suicide. There was no need for them to do so. The reports are conflicting. The moves to whitewash everything by conspiragoons unreasonably overwhelming. Sure, I'll accept the "official narrative" if it's ever backed up by proof. I don't back any particular conspiracy theories, especially not the one cooked up by the authorities.

Nick Kollerstrom has nothing to do with me. Just as I'm sure Ariel Sharon and Adolf Hitler have nothing to do with you. Or do they? (See how this assumption stuff works?)

You questioned a "ludicrous statement", conveniently ignoring that it was a question-mark.

Your paradigm is bipolar. Either that, or it's your agenda. Conspiragoon tactics.

Oh and the question still stands: When did you stop beating your wife?

paul said...

I found it fascinating to read, because, at least from a psychiatrist's point of view, it had all the hallmarks of a delusional obsessive.I think most psychiatrists would hesitate to pathologise someone they've never met on the basis of one piece of writing.

I also think they would hesitate to do it in public.

When delusional obsessives come together en masse on the internet, they form a religion, devotees of which are known as 'truthers'.Any evidence for this ridiculous, sweeping assertion?

These people then prey on impressionable, confused and gullible people in much the same way as Scientologists do.Any evidence for this ridiculous, sweeping assertion?

James said...

If Mohammad Sidique Khan had offered less 'circumstantial' evidence than, say, leaving his body parts all around the circumstances; had gone even further than the traditional televised memorial video and went so far as to say "I'm going to detonate myself on the Circle Line on the 7th July", then what would the Conspiraloons be saying?
Oh yes, how surprising that he has conveniently implicated himself for the benefit of the government and media! Do they really expect us to believe that?

Wonderful thing being a Conspiraloon. Not enough evidence and vital questions remain unanswered, too much evidence and it's all a bit convenient. You have the great advantage of being able to make things up as you go along. This you call reason.

steve said...

James - My 'insult' was not an insult as such, but an empirically based deduction derived from years of experience. Thus it cannot be considered childish or a prejudice (thus not nameist). It's just a social fact, all James are wankers. Anything they say other than the abjectly banal is wank. Face it. That's just the way it is. And reading through your rubbish comments adds further justification to my conclusion.

steve said...

There you go again, there is neither a surfeit of evidence nor a deficit of evidence in the 7/7 story - it's a purposefully created confusion to satisfy wankers like you.

'James' said...

Oh dear, it looks like I've really upset Steve. Surely you crackpots have a bit more to go on than just criticizing my name! In any case, I thought we had already established that my name isn't really 'James' after all? A confusing world of espionage and counter-espionage this is; what if I told you my name is actually Stephen? Would i still be a wanker? Perhaps i have no name at all, maybe I am a lizard? Or perhaps I'm part of a secret MI5 unit, tasked with harvesting information about potential threats to the State? I'd watch your back Steve, no-one is safe and there is nowhere to hide. We have been building up a profile of you for some time. Everything is an illusion. Even the long-dark-haired one is part of the operation. We will push you out of a helicopter.

'James' said...

Anyway losers,

It's been a great pleasure immersing myself in the world of the delusional, paranoid obsessive for the last couple of weeks, but unfortunately I'm off on holiday tomorrow to spend some of my dirty capitalist money on enjoying myself.

Terrible thing this fascist state we live in, they even let you leave the country to enjoy the pleasures of the free world. Fucking hell, they even let you write blogs uncovering how evil they are. And to top it all, that big, greedy, capitalist giant, Google, provides the service for you to do it! Honestly, Solzhenitsyn would be turning in his grave if he knew about the oppression we live under.

Unsurprisingly, not one of you has been able to answer the simple question of why it is people haven't voted to change the system that exploits them. Nor has one of you been able to provide evidence that 7/7 was an 'inside job' (and don't move the goalposts, that's what you all think). The only attempt I've seen is an admirable effort from Bridget to question why it is that the other bombers didn't make martyrdom videos. Well Bridget, perhaps they were camera shy? Perhaps they were conforming with the Islamic injunction not to reproduce images of God's creations? Maybe they thought their mate Mohammad Sidique could do a better job summing up their grievances? Who knows, maybe they didn't want to wipe mum's wedding video of the last remaining tape? I don't really care Bridget. None of this means the government did it. You might as well find it suspicious that none of them bothered to climb up a minaret to make loud denunciations of the West. I mean, that's what these people are meant to do, isn't it? If only they just stuck to the al-Qaeda training manual, wouldn't life be so much simpler?

Anyway, as I said, it's been a great pleasure and I'll miss you all. Answers on a postcard please, the more abusive the better. I particularly like to be told that it is hoped my plane will crash, or that my child will be stolen while I'm out getting pissed with my middle class friends in a tapas bar (nice class element for you there Ant!), but anything will do.

Hasta luego Antagonista! Time to pack it in I think.

steve said...

James you lame shill. Your name gets pcked on because it's about the least boring thing about your posts. Anyway, have the last word go on, it won't be any good. You take yourself miles too seriously and go on and on and on - nobody reads you you spend too long on line. Get out more. Get a fresh perspective you narrow minded twat. And some new insults - 'losers' !? ouch ouch ouch. Y-awn.

HMPB said...

Indeed, this is scary! Excellent pictures; somewhat glad it was probably done at the behest of the Americans.