For the past decade and before, the US and UK governments have been a cabal. With the backing of force they have engineered the world economy in order to enrich the elites and impoverish all other people. They have done as much as possible to destroy liberty, democracy and justice in their own countries. They have awakened a mass protest in the form of the anti-globalization movement, which is only weak due to the sheer scale and long term planning of the establishment's attack on freedom that has been waged with economic control and skilful lying to date.
People have always had the same soft spots, which can be abused by any government with the necessary will, be they Nazi, Russian Communist, or "Freedom-loving". This attack on America could not have come at a better time to meet their needs. The verve with which they have leapt to their task is faster than a speeding bomber. If only they could treat a nuclear accident with the same sort of urgency when one of them happens, and the cloud quietly spreads over the city.
So popular has become one of the most moronic presidents presiding over the most anti-democratic administration of the US in living memory, that our Prime Minister, Tony Blair, jumped in with the ease of a fox "to stand shoulder to shoulder" with his rise in unquestioned power and prominence. This has nothing to do with the safety of the British people or of mankind. America has many enemies across the globe who have nothing to do with us, as we have them. What is to be gained from making us involved, becoming a target, increasing the size of the problem into the sort of proportions as to make it impossible to resolve in terms of compromise? Whatever the exact problem actually turns out to be.
That article 5 in the NATO constitution should have read: "An excuse to attack the liberty in one member of the alliance will be considered a valid excuse to attack the liberties in all members of the alliance."
Notice how, not one week passed before all those unpopular anti-freedom policies that have nothing to do with the event started opportunistically drifting off the shelves to see if they would float now or not. Even greater militarization of our government expenditure, the right of police to stop and search without suspicion, even greater state secrecy, press controls, a national DNA database, more surveillance and harassment of non-violent protest movements, compulsory identity cards, social security entitlement cards.
Identity cards are always their favourite, not because they are any good, but because they sound innocuous. In fact it's not the card that's the problem (and this is where people get deliberately misled), it is the huge database on the other side of it recording all facts and, more importantly, suspicions. Any policeman would have a right to stop you and look at your card. What's the problem with that? you say. Fine. He can look at your face, can't he? Is that not enough? Your card will have a photograph of you on it, so why does he need to look at that too? What he's actually going to do is swipe the card with a barcode pen and a note will go on your record in the database saying where you were, what you were doing, when you were stopped by this policeman. This policeman will then be notified of anything "interesting" on the file. He will check his electronic notepad, and come to ask: "Didn't your brother once get arrested damaging GM crops last summer? We need to find him again. I think you better come down to the station with me so we can have a word with you, don't you think?" And if you say, "Get lost!" that fact will be entered into the database in your file, and the next time you meet them there will be four policemen around you, because they don't want any trouble.
Fact: Some of the terrorists in the WTC bombings used false and stolen identification. Any counter-terrorism project that is based on the use of identity cards will be easily subverted in this way, possibly more easily than our current, haphazard systems of identification which are more unpredictable in their nature.
Fact: The first line of defence against the attacks on the WTC is a well-funded and completely alert air-traffic control system.
At this moment, our government is still selling off the National Air Traffic Control System to the cheapest commercial operator because of "financial pressures". I suppose we're to believe that the MoD will be funding a parallel, well-funded military service that will also be monitoring the aircraft that are overflying this country in case of any danger. Being a separate entity, they won't know what commands are about to be given to the aircraft by the NATS. Being better equipped and funded by the taxpayer direct, they will be able to pinpoint the aircraft with greater accuracy and possibly see collisions coming before the over-worked and underpaid civilian NATS operators do. Will they bother to phone them and tell them how to save lives? Perhaps not, because the amount that they actually see will need to be a secret and they don't want people relying on their services. After all, if any of this military hardware actually proved useful to civilian life, the government might object to paying for it. And if the MoD spots a suspicious aircraft, would they phone NATS to check up that there isn't an obvious explanation before shooting it out of the sky? Perhaps not. Maybe their definition of suspicious behaviour will be tightly defined: only those flying objects which are aimed at the government or Prime Minister are a threat. Like I said, this has nothing to do with our safety. And, indeed, if NATS don't always know where the Prime Minister is (because that's a military secret) how can they avoid threatening him inadvertently? Our military could be deliberately set up to pose a greater threat to our safety than any foreign government's.
They tell us this is a new chapter in world history. Everything had changed now. This is a wishful statement because the one thing they want changed is for all criticism of their behavoir to go away. We're all united now, except the some of us can keep secrets and make decisions, and the rest of us get spied upon and told what to do.
With the advent of electronic encryption technology, the government has told us that its manufacture won't be legal unless it can obtain the keys to break it secretly and snoop on all our private mail and conversations. The reason for this is, of course, to detect crime and espionage, both of which have long been possible without encryption technology. So I don't see what difference it will make. Sufficient technology is always available to criminals and spies, who have money, and not to ordinary people who politically dissent. Remember all that surveillance the government made on CND for all those years? Not the slightest act of terrorism has been committed by that organization in its entire history. What were they doing it for? None of it has anything to do without our safety.
And while the government has been insisting that we use breakable codes and we surrender all door keys and private diaries to them, us "who have nothing to hide" (so why are they looking), it encourages the arms companies to manufacture and sell weapons to our future enemies abroad with no safeguards.
For example, if Excoset missiles were manufactured with a back-door control built into their guidance system -- a little device in the warhead that listened on a secret radio frequency for a special code that the manufacturer would know -- it could be instructed to self-destruct before it hits its target. Wouldn't that be useful when your new enemies obtained and shot one back at you? Maybe if you activated it soon enough, you could blow up in the launching tube and take their ship down, Trojan horse wise. But no, all these weapons are sold as-is. It is we, the people, who are expected to disarm ourselves against the government who appears to take no interest in our safety.
Another example: at the DSEi fair there was a company selling radar equipment able to detect the "stealth" aircraft we have paid so much tax money to develop and manufacture. For God's sakes, what is the point of that? A country that has any interest in security does not sell its best weapons, or countermeasures to those weapons, abroad. It doesn't make sense. Weapons sales have absolutely nothing to do with national security.
And it doesn't even defend parts of the government that well either. I'll tell you what defensive military hardware looks like. It looks like anti-aircraft guns on the top of the Pentagon building. I'll tell you what defensive military hardware does not look like. Ships, missiles, bombers and fighter planes all heading away from the country they are purportedly defending and stirring up trouble in the vicinity of nuclear capable countries. After all, the logic goes that we have to maintain, at enormous expense, nuclear missiles pointed at no one in particular on our own lands as a "deterrent" against invasion, so how can we be invading other nuclear countries then?
The US defence department protected the President's life. What do I care? I, nor my friends, nor all the people who have to fork out the taxes to pay for this protection system are not the President, so our lives don't matter. If the job of the military was to defend the American people at large, it failed dismally. But it doesn't believe that is its job or there would have been a humble apology and at least one top official would have resigned. This didn't happen. No one in there thinks that they have failed. They saved the President's fucking life, didn't they? If he had died instead of ten thousand New Yorkers, you can bet the head of the CIA would have resigned in disgrace. For only then would he have failed.
The defence department keeps many military secrets from the people. These secrets are about nuclear and chemical weapons accidents in the countryside. This has nothing to do with a foreign enemy and it can only be explained properly by imagining that the ordinary people are their enemy. When you consider an example of a secret, you must ask: Whose lives will be saved if this secret were known? Possibly a strategic secret, if let out, would save the lives of many enemy soldiers who would otherwise be attacked. Possibly a secret about where the President is going would put his life in danger. Fine. But state secrets about horrible nuclear accidents could, if publicised, save the lives of many people in their own country because they might choose not to continue to live in a radio-actively polluted environment. Therefore the people are their enemy.
Lately, they've been trying to frighten us about possible biological warfare attacks from abroad. But we've already been biologically attacked from within for ten years by being fed beef products infected with prions. What killed us was the secrecy with which they did it (claiming, as an excuse, the protection of the economy, and the prevention of panic). What saved us was the fact that the infectious agent was not quite as infectious as it could have been. This is plain, undeserved luck and nothing to do with skill because we could have died by the millions like the cattle did from this mysterious disease unchecked.
You know that if there was a biological attack from abroad, the government would publicise it if and only if it gave them greater power and popularity due to whatever soft-spots for lies we have in our human character. Otherwise, if it was, say, due to an almighty fuck up, they would keep it secret to "prevent panic", but actually only to maintain power and reduce accountability.
That's what life is all about. You want to be on top, you want to win, and you want to have a party. War is so much more fun as compared to fixing the real problems in the country, especially if it is a chance to ignore them, and make them worse. The ordinary people were not thanking their leaders enough recently for the great strides they had made in strengthening and streamlining our national economy (as opposed to actually improving people's lives at large), so they got bored with that. It's time for war now. If only they could find somebody to hit. That is the problem.
Apparently, the Americans have produced a book which explains what they are doing, and gives the evidence on which they are going to base their actions. This book is going to be kept secret. Isn't that a laugh? "Why are you bombing country X?" we'll ask. And they'll say, "The answer is published in our excellent little book. But you can't see this book because you might tell country X about it. And might warn country Y, who is next on the list. And we can't have that."
But then, of course, bombing isn't the answer. You've got the threat of bombs, which you can use everywhere once you have made an example of a few countries already. And that example is, "We can bomb anywhere we like, not give a plausible excuse, and get away with it. We are above the law and beyond reason, so do not even try to argue with us because we don't need to listen. Now cut down those trees and sell us that Uranium, pronto."
Oh, and don't forget "special forces". We are to believe that they are going to send in teams of white guys in the dark to scuffle around the desert. They will be unable to speak the local language. After two days they will have diarrhoea from having drunk the local water. They will either ride around on mountain bikes on a muddy road without leaving tracks, or have to hijack some fifty year old clapped-out Russian truck with a broken cylinder head gasket. They might kill a few people they don't know. They won't know where to find any gas when their truck runs out because there are no self-service credit card petrol stations. Their backup will be a noisy, easy-to-shoot helicopter that can be heard by everyone in the next valley. Good equipment is irrelevant. You might be able to use technology to miniaturize mobile phones and GPS digital watches, but machine guns, bullets, dynamite, food and warm clothes still weigh the same as they always have done and people are no stronger even if they are high on steroids. You cannot disguise a stranger to look like someone familiar, and anyone carrying enough money for bribes is worth mugging.
Time to pick an easier target. How about asylum-seekers?