Sunday, December 20, 2009

New World Order: Is this really a threat?

The internet is full of blogs raging against the looming prospect of a 'New World Order' and the implications that may result to our freedoms. Many conspiracists see this as a 'take over' of the world by those at the top of the tree and will finally see the end of democracy as we know it. They may be correct in their protestations but, on the other hand, they may not have thought this one through to its logical conclusion. I have made no secret in the past about my dreams of having a world government where we are all equal citizens under the eye of the law. Of course, in any human society there will always be those who are more equal than others, but that is to be expected from human nature. So, is the concept of a world government such a bad idea? Many of you would say yes as you fear the loss of your imagined rights but you would have to balance this with the prospect of world peace.
If there were no nations then countries would not go to war, for whatever reasons they decided to go to war with each other in the past. Think of the massive military industries centred around the world which are geared up to destroying our fellow man. If you take the individual nation states out of the equation then one has no need for those huge industries to exist. The resources that those industries take up are phenomenal and those same resources could be used to futher the benefit of man as opposed to destroying us.
There is also the rampant bribery that is evident wherever one looks in the world. There are countries, the world over, whose leaders are feathering their own nests at the expense of their own citizens. Greed is everywhere and it is the fuel that stokes the fires of poverty and ignorance. There is the greed of the political leaders, the greed of multinational conglomerates and right down to the local thief who breaks into your house because you have something he wants. Our civilisation is flawed because we have built our society on the foundations of avarice and power. Might is right. God helps those who help themselves. We have all heard of those sayings but the truth of the matter is that is how this world functions and millions of people have to die needlessly in order for those two sayings to be seen to be correct. The removal of nations would relegate those leaders, who take bribes and those who give them, to oblivion. We waste so much of the Earth's natural resources to top up the pockets of men who are already rich and powerful.
Then there is the potential problem of total power for those who assume control in a world government; do we trust them? My honest answer would have to be, absolutely not! However, that sentiment would apply to any political system practising now. It is a healthy attitude to take, not to trust the people who govern us. There should be checks and balances to curtail the normal political activity of gaining more power because we all know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
At the end of the day we are not going to sort out the problems that we, as a species, have burdened this small planet with until we have a world government with enough power to counteract the self serving nation states and regional blocs that dominate the political structures of this world of ours. Is there going to massive upheavals while this process happens? Most certainly. Is there going to be wars and innocent people who will die during this process? I can see no other way to avoid this from happening. Are there going to be severe curtailments of what little rights we have? I hope that this will be a temporary measure and that democracy will eventually raise its head. But, most importantly, can we afford to allow the world to continue on the way that it is going? Most certainly not.
Therefore, I would have to conclude that a 'New World Order' just might be the only way for mankind to go.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Labour misusing council money

Well well well, the labour party in Prestonpans, in Scotland, have been using local taxpayers money to pay for a fund-raising barbeque for the Labour party.


In a statement, David Costello, chair of Prestonpans Labour Party, expressed "surprise" at the furore and said council support for the barbecue had been the result of a "long-standing agreement". So, the Labour party may have been illegally using local tapayers money for years and all they can say is it's a "long-standing agreement". Well, that's ok then. I wonder how an employee of a company, who has been ripping it off for years, would stand in court with the excuse that it was a "long-standing agreement"? More to the point, why isn't BBC Scotland News highlighting this blatant misuse of public money? Could it be that it may shed some bad light on their Labour masters in Scotland?
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray in local donor row this article appeared in the BBC Scotland News website.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

McCrone report Top Secret

Here is a report commisioned by the Conservative government which was kept secret from the people of Scotland for decades. It has only lately been released.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

The demise of Wardog

It is a sad day for democracy when an independent political blogger, 'Wardog', has been hounded by the Scottish press because he called Labour MP Murphy a c**t. (The same word that Peter Mandleson was reported to have used to describe reporters from the 'Sun' newspapers. Mandleson said that he had used the word 'chump' to describe those reporters.) Those Scottish newspapers contacted his place of employment and 'Wardog' has since had to retire from blogging.
For the Scotsman link:
The question you have to ask yourself is whether this use of that word is what he was hounded for or was he hounded for the frequent 'Freedom of Information' questions that he was pursuing?
One of those FOIs was where William Bain, now Labour MP for Glasgow North East, was living. During the campaign Willie Bain described himself as living in the constituency but, strangely, he held a post as a lecturer in London where he worked 3 days per week. He told the press that he stayed at his mothers place in Springburn, Glasgow. I don't know how he managed to afford to travel home every week when working in London yet living in Glasgow. Surely lecturers wages are not that great, so they keep telling us, and yet he can afford to do this constant travelling and be able to live in London as well.
I 'happened' to visit Hammersmith & Fulham town hall and 'happened' to notice a William Bain living at an address in London given as his place of residence in London and found he was registered to vote in Hammersmith & Fulham. Yet, the Labour party in Glasgow denied that William Bain was registered to vote in London. No Scottish media reporter has ever asked William Bain this question.
What is so important about this question? William Bain founded his campaign on his insistence that he lived in the Glasgow NE constituency and was, therefore, a local. He also used this 'fact' to attack the SNP candidate for not being local. This would be something that could have been easily checked by any Scottish media investigative reporter. However, the Scottish media, in my opinion, have been consistent in not asking any probing questions to any Scottish Labour MP or MSP. Make of that what you will.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Willie Mcrae V British Nuclear industry

I was given this link by a poster on ‘Blether with Brian’, a blog that I visit quite often.

It’s about a Scottish SNP activist and solicitor who was investigating the British Nuclear Industry. He was found dead in his car under extremely suspicious circumstances. Well worth a visit. You can find even more information on the case if you Google his name.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

More MPs investigated regarding expenses

Here we go again 'Six MPs and peers face fraud charges in British expenses scandal' and
'Tory MP David Curry quits key role amid expenses probe'.

What is interesting is the latter of the two links which relates to Jacqui Smith and Tony McNulty who were only asked to apologise for their 'mistakes' by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. Here is' Jacqui Smith's apology to the house of commons and Guido Fawkes's interview with the BBC.

I wonder how David Cameron didn't know that Mr Curry, MP for Skipton and Ripon in North Yorkshire was thinking of resigning his post 2 months after taking on the job of chairman of Parliament's standards committee? Something seems strange here. Keep in mind that Jacqui Smith only gave her apology to the house of Commons last month.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Blackwater and Pakistan

I read an interesting article on the CNN News website
Pakistan, Peshawar blasts blackwater
where Al Qaeda denied having anything to do with the current bombings in Pakistan. Not being a great lover of terrorist groups I wondered what benefit Al Qaeda would gain from not admitting to those bombings, seeing as Al Qaeda had taken great pleasure in admitting other terrorist attacks. I decided to do a little investigation into 'Blackwater' now known as 'Xe'. I didn't have to look any further than wikipedia where there is an interesting article about them Wikipedia.
The company, Xe, was founded by an ex-US Navy seal, Erik Prince who was an intern in the Bush administration. The president of Xe, Gary Jackson, is also an ex-US Navy seal. No problem, one would think, two ex-forces mates setting up a private company to make a bit of money in their old profession. It starts getting a little more complicated and suspicious when there are members of their board, namely: Cofer Black, who was director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center between 2006 and 2008, and who is also chairman of 'Total Intelligence Solutions' a company linked to Xe. It starts getting a little complicated after this, which, I suppose, is what it is supposed to do. Anyway, the kernel of the story is that Xe is 'linked' to the CIA. Now, if I started up a security company and wanted the 'big' contracts then I would bring on board ex-CIA men who had contacts within the CIA to pass on those contracts to my company. Or, I suppose, another way of looking at it is that Xe is a front for the CIA. Take whichever viewpoint suits you.
To get back to the original point, why would Al Qaeda deny bombing those towns in Pakistan unless they didn't do it. Could it be that Al Qaeda are right and that they didn't bomb those towns but Xe operatives did? If they did then one would have to ask why would a USA private(?) security company, linked to the CIA, bomb towns in Pakistan killing and maiming hundreds of Pakistani citizens? The only conclusion that I can come to is that the USA needed to focus the minds of the Pakistani government and the world at large to keep pressure on the Pakistani government to ensure their army continue fighting the Talaban on their border with Afghanistan.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Glasgow NE by election

The Glasgow NE by election is to take place in the next few days. Suddenly there is a huge increase in the voters register. Over 6000 more people have joined the list. The last time this happened, in Glenrothes, even the glencampbelled media in Scotland was admitting that the SNP would take this Westminster seat. Then the voters list went missing from the courts when the SNP asked to see them to check that everything was above board. I hope that this is not another Glenrothes. The Labour party, in the past, have been convicted, through the courts, of fraud in elections. I believe that last one was in Birmingham in England. I am looking forward to the results of this upcoming by election and I suspect that the SNP, if/when they lose, will be asking to see the list again.

Saturday, November 7, 2009


We originally went into Afghanistan to take on the people who attacked the USA in 9/11. I'm still not convinced that this actually happened in the way that we are being told. I know that some of you on here think that I am a conspiracist, you have the right to think that, but stay with me a moment and just have a look at some of the evidence. I may be adding 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5, but I don't believe I am. The problem that we have is that people just don't want to believe that their, or any other government could do such a thing to their own people. Well, it isn't that hard to take in. We had a discussion a short time ago about the 8 million deaths in world war one, but what is also forgetten is that over 46 million people were invalided through arnaments or disease. So we have the leaders of the world, in that time, accepting losses of 54 million of their citizens to futher the aims of the national policy of the countries involved. It still hasn't changed. We know now that the second Iraq war was all about oil. Yet at the time we were told it was all about WMDs. How many brave soldiers died, on both sides, how many civilians died and were injured? The fact of the matter is that our leaders care nothing about the citizens that they pretend to represent because they are more interested in playing at 'big boy' games called world politics. It was the same for the Vietnam war. How come the USA, the biggest and most powerful state in the world, at that time, couldn't defeat a small country on the edge of the world. Remember the excuse that the Usa gave to send its troops over there to fight? It was to stop the domino effect of communist control in that part of the world. Remember that the USA had fought in the second world war on two fronts and succeeded in helping to destroy two highly mechanised military countries and yet couldn't defeat a third world nation? The truth is that it suited the USA, at that time, to subsidise it military industries which can only be done by war.

So let's look at the evidence of 9/11. Watch THIS and then tell me that this was a jet aircraft which flew into the pentagon. If this was not as the USA said it was then what was it? How come there is never a mention of the people who lost their lives in the jets which flew into the Twin Towers? Can anyone point to me where the list of all those that died in the planes which hit the Twin Towers are? We always hear about the plane that was brought down by it's passengers just outside of Washington but never, about the other planes. Why is that? Then there is the problem of the other building that collapsed (?) beside the Twin Towers; it wasn't hit so why did that collapse? Why was its collapse mentioned on TV by a British reporter when the building was still standing behind her.