This new rebel army massacre won't stop the USA/UK's support for the Free Syrian Army

By Dark Politricks

A new video released by Syrian rebels fighting President Assad in Syria apparently showing them shooting captured troops loyal to President Assad has not been mentioned in the western media but the western TV stations love to parrot the line whenever the shoe is on the other foot.

You can find some of the video on the Guardian one of the few papers that has some modicum of balance even though it is definitely not independent in any way it is mostly anti-war in its articles. The text above the video goes:

"Amateur footage purports to show pro-Assad militia captured by rebels, who are seen collecting their dead as fierce clashes continue in Aleppo. Government forces continue to shell Syria's largest city, including the rebel stronghold of Salaheddin. The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, say time is running out for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad"

Not exactly singing the same sort of tune as the "town about to be massacred" and "Assad troops massacre civilians and rebels" etc that has been covering the media over the weeks including by the same Guardian paper trying to give some form of balance however small to both sides of this civil war in Syria.

You can find more balanced views (in that I mean a view opposing the western one so that you can make your own mind up) on rt.com or Russia Today.

Yes the same international TV station that is attacked by Hillary Clinton, Western news pundits and others for its "pro-Kremlin" views, a KGB front and so on. The video they show is below:



The article that goes with it can be found here: War Crime? Syrian rebels execute captured policeman on tape.

This article has more than a slightly different slant on matters than the Guardian one which goes to show how one journalist's writing can turn A into B and people who only read from one news source will undoubtedly get a skewed outlook on matters.

Now I would never advise anyone to get their news only from one source but you should never, never just believe what you are told by the Western media who are mostly owned and controlled by the same few rich families and organisations.

Editorial control they call it, a reason given by Julian Assange when he fell out with the Guardian when they refused to show certain documents, videos from his #cablegate release.

The same one that might see him end up in an orange jumpsuit in the USA.

Why the Swedish police cannot just interview him over the phone or in the Ecuadorian embassy I don't know but he hasn't even been charged with a crime.

Supposedly they only want to talk to him about about certain crimes that can only be described as "unusual" and involve two girls who were WikiLeak "fans" or "benefactors" who obviously had a crush on him having sex with him on consecutive nights.

The two girls found out about each other and as some may say - "Hell has no fury like a woman  scorned" they both went to the police and accused Julian of having sex with him without wearing a condom!

Now I don't know how this is a crime as they obviously let him do it otherwise it would be rape or sexual assault but nonetheless the Swedes want him in their country for interviewing.

At the moment he is in the Ecuadorian embassy in London waiting for the Ecuadorian's to make their mind up about asylum whilst I guess the Americans threaten that country with everything under the sun but it all seems like madness to me.

If you could be arrested and locked up for having sex without a condom then how many men out there would be in prison right now?

Anyway back to the point - get your news from opposing points of view and then make your own mind up. Do not believe everything your told whatever channel it comes from.

Russia Today may be the spawn of the KGB and Kremlin propaganda in some peoples eyes but it most definitely gives a voice to those people the western media overlook.

However remember this is the channel that gave Julian Assange his own "The World Tomorrow" interview show to talk to people the western news channels wouldn't dare talk to.

If I want news or details of political crimes and Russian mafia like governance then I wouldn't expect Russia Today to give it to me.

In the same way I don't expect my countries own news channels to attack their government and the crush of our civil rights and the rising police state in the same way.

However Russia Today allows rebels, dissidents, people considered "unpatriotic" and all the other BS names FOX and other channels throw about in the USA to appear on their channels frequently.

Everybody from members of Anonymous, WikiLeaks to Alex Jones, Glenn Greenwald and Norman Finkelstein at the very least.

People the western shows stay away from like a turd on a stick.

So when you hear about Assad and the next town about to be massacred just remember that war crimes are being committed and admitted by the UN Human Rights council by both sides in this civil war.

Only last week the Free Syrian Army committed massive attacks in the capital that killed numerous civilians as well as the Syrian Defence Minister. UN human rights chief Navi Pillay said last week:

"Pillay cited unconfirmed reports of atrocities including executions and shooting of civilians by snipers during recent fighting in the Syrian capital Damascus. Her office had also been receiving an increasing number of reports of opposition fighters torturing or executing prisoners, and reports that unarmed prisoners had been killed in the central prisons of Aleppo and Homs during uprisings in the past week, in violation of international law. "

This is a civil war and should be left as such without all the arming and funding by Saudia Arabia and Qatar with help from US/UK/French war mongerers who don't seem to learn anything.

Especially that if you put religious fanatics into power including your supposed "mortal enemy" you end up with Libya.

A country now run by ex LIFG / al-Qaeda members, rebel armies controlling towns and summary executions of people with links to Gadaffi or black skin.

Just remember what happened when the CIA helped create al-Qaeda in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Blowback and bombings and then 9.11.

Syria and Libya are a lot closer to home than Afghanistan and before "our help" their leaders, as crazy and despotic as they may seem to us, they were a hell of a lot nicer than our "ally" Saudi Arabia. A medieval country run under ancient barbaric laws with no respect for human rights and women.

If foreign policy was logical this would have been the target of any post-9.11 attack due to the number of hijackers that were Saudi Arabian and all the funding of terror groups it does regularly - but then they supply us oil and Bush's family have a "close" relationship with the House of Saud.

But when has western foreign policy ever been logical and when does the enemy of our enemy stay our enemy and not our friend?

We are using Keynesian economics but giving the money to the banks instead of the people

By Dark Politricks

I saw an interesting interview with Simon Jenkins on This Week last week in which he described how at the moment we are stuck in a liquidity trap and the only solution we have is to print more money in the hope it sorts out the dying victim e.g the UK. As he said:

"the government would be better off giving the billions of pounds it plans to pump into the UK economy to the public in the form of a Christmas bonus." "The columnist damned the government plan to get out of recession, claiming "it's fraud, it's a scam, it's a lie".

However as the Bank of England enters phases of printing money - or quantitative easing as they call it, Simon Jenkins believes that they are giving the money to the wrong people i.e the banks.

He believes that instead of increasing the deficit by the Bank of England buying bonds from the banks and paying interest and all the other funny business our economy actually behaves like we should instead be giving the money direct to the people to stimulate demand in the dead economy before we suffer a lost 20 years like Japan.

Keynesian, yes, but he believes that although printing money could eventually drive up inflation - which we are doing already by printing money to give to the banks.

We should instead be printing it and giving it directly to the citizens and tax payers of the UK. The same people who are now paying for the mistakes of the bankers.

He believes that by doing so it wouldn't be adding to the national debt or increasing the deficit as it wasn't money being borrowed but printed.

By doing this demand in the economy will be created as the people will use the money to buy goods and services which in turn would help businesses who will start to invest and grow for the future.

Whether you like the idea of not what we have at the moment is a case of the government taking tax payers money as well as printing and borrowing it to hand it over to the same banks who caused the financial collapse of 2008 in the hope that they will in turn use it to help businesses.

In fact what these banks are doing are using the money to shore up their empty vaults to meet Basel Capital requirements that they must hold a certain percentage of money in their bank. The fact that nearly all these banks have no money and it's just one big stack of cards waiting to fall down as soon as a country defaults and can't pay back Bank A, who in turn cannot pay back Bank B who in turn asks the government for another bail out is irrelevant.

Anyone who knows how money is created knows that it is created through debt and new money is created every-time someone takes a loan out. That money is then multiplied and leveraged beyond belief even though it doesn't physically exist apart from digits in a computer database.

If there was no debt there would be no money - simple.

It's all one big ponzi scheme anyhow as we all know by now which is run by banksters who launder money for Mexican drug cartels, wide boys who fix Libor interest rates, and interchangeable politicians / bankers who move from one job to the other and then back again.

All as if there was nothing wrong with a politician developing banking policy that helps push millions of Brits over the financial cliff and then go off and work in one of the banks they created policy for once they are finally voted out of office.

Simon believes the politicians and those that demand we must be austere wince at the idea of giving money directly to people as it seems somehow vulgar. As if giving billions of our tax pounds direct to the same people who caused the mess so that they can carry on giving themselves huge wages and bonuses isn't somehow!

So if we are already using a Keynesian economic policy that is being masked as an Austrian one through the use of the words austerity, the cutting of  public services, and all the other spending cuts that the millionaire front bench don't rely on then why don't we try to stimulate demand by giving the money to the people rather than the failed banks and businesses?

We could even tailor this arrangement so that it doesn't seem so "vulgar" by declaring that the money is a once off (or yearly) dividend to all tax payers who helped bail out the banks. 

Banks we basically own anyway. The money could be in the form of a special coupon or voucher that was only redeemable in this country (to stop people putting it in offshore bank accounts or saving it in UK bank accounts).

The voucher would be accepted in any UK based shop or business as legal tender and that company would then be able to redeem it for cash if they so wished from the Treasury by taking it to a bank or a special government office.

To stop people just turning up at banks and transferring the coupons to cash there would be a stipulation that only businesses could redeem the vouchers and only as long as they had a receipt showing the goods or services purchased with said voucher.

Other ways could be created to prevent fraudulent black markets transference we Brits are so good at.

Also we could have a "double the value" scheme in which if  the holder of the coupon bought goods made in the UK (not in China with a made in UK sticker on it!) then they would get the item, good or service at a discount. This would help stimulate the UK manufacturing industry.

Obviously this would only apply to tax payers and not people on the dole or those who have no intention of ever working.

Different sizes of voucher would be created just like paper money so that change could be given in other vouchers and there would be a "use by" date of one year to ensure it was spent within a certain time frame. It would basically exist like a dual currency alongside the existing fiat one we call the pound.

You might not like the idea or the theory for many reasons including it's Keynesian nature but we are already in a double dip recession with no hope of growth on the horizon and a growing national debt due to all the dole money having to be paid out to the public service workers the Tory/Lib Dem coalition have sacked.

If they somehow expected the private sector just to zoom in and suck up all these workers they were poorly mistaken.

Our chancellor George Osborne has failed in what he set out to do - grow the economy and cut the debt so we need some kind of plan.

Giving money to the banks has failed so why not give it to those of us who have basically saved the country anyway?

If 20 million or so people all spending a few billion pounds in the UK economy this year doesn't help it grow at all then we are truly screwed. It's only an idea but one which few people seem willing to consider.

The 2012 London Olympics start off with protests by Critical Mass protests

By Dark Politricks

As the 4 hour opening London 2012 Olympic ceremony opened tonight the media was concentrated on the display of England's history being played out in the Olympic stadium rather than the mass protests being held around London.

As Danny Boyle the director of Trainspotting delivered a history of England from the "green and pleasant land" to the industrial revolution. Which included historical as well as fictional characters including Mr Bean and James Bond who "parachuted" down to the arena along with Queen from a helicopter as British musicians played tunes from punk to dubstep and Rave to Grime to the crowd. 

Music most people outside of the UK had probably never heard of but which apparently showed off our sense of culture and Art which has replaced our once huge Empire after the 2nd World War.

However as the TV viewers were fixed to the screen and watching giant chimneys rise from the ground and clouds rain on the ground, volunteer dancers and actors playing their parts in the history of Britain and much more there were actually mass protests being held around London.

The protests used the hashtag #Criticalmass on Twitter and delivered messages about Police brutality as the cyclists protested the blocking of roads and cycle lanes within central London so that they could be used by Olympic dignitaries only as "fast tracks".


Apparently during the London Olympics it is more important that David Beckham can reach the worlds biggest McDonalds in super fast time whilst the rest of London's population are stuck in traffic jams.

From Russia Today:

Critical Mass is a cycling event typically held on the last Friday of every month all around the world.

Earlier there have been calls on the Internet to stage the London ride on July 27 as an anti-Olympics protest. Scuffles occurred near the Olympic Stadium on the outskirts of the Olympic Park with participants saying they were being “kettled”.

Some witnesses said police pushed the cyclists aside to get David Beckham through traffic. 

A witness video uploaded to YouTube allegedly showed police assaulting and pepper-spraying a disabled man on a tricycle who was later arrested.

.


The Police told ITV News that a number of protesters were arrested under section 12 of the Public Order Act after cyclists taking part in the Critical Mass bike ride broke the conditions of their protest in Central London.

 







According to some reports at least 50 people have been detained and their bicycles loaded onto special buses parked nearby to be taken god knows where.

The Metropolitan Police have also used Pepper Spray on a number of protesters as well as arresting a large number of them including the disabled and the elderly.

However the media were silent on these protests on the main channels as the BBC turned their main channel into an Olympic love fest all night long which only finished after midnight, with Paul McCartney singing on a piano to the packed arena.

The London Police kept the public informed about the protests and the likelihood of arrest through the use of Twitter and Tweeted a number of messages warning the public about the likelihood of arrest if they turned up.

They also used the hashtag #criticalmass and some of their messages are below.

 Participants must not enter any part of the ORN #criticalmass #protest


 FROM @METPOLICEEVENTS ON TWITTER: (about 6 hours ago)


 Participants must remain south of the River Thames at all times during the times stated                               #criticalmass #protest
 FROM @METPOLICEEVENTS ON TWITTER: (about 6 hours ago)


 Participants must keep moving on the procession route unless stopped or directed by police or due to traffic signals #criticalmass #protest FROM @METPOLICEEVENTS ON TWITTER: (about 6 hours ago)


Just another sign that when it comes to big money and sponsors versus civil rights and the right to protest the citizen is always bottom of the list.

Please call Obama a Dictator not a Socialist!

By Dark Politricks - Is President Obama really a Communist or is he more of a dictator?

A quick lesson to all the people out there who keep calling Obama a Communist or a Socialist and interchanging these words with the word Liberal.

For me it really gets on my tits as its basic use of language and although I only went to a mere English comprehensive I do know the difference between these 3 words.

You only have to read a dictionary to see that the three sociological concepts are totally different from each other and that in no-way whatsoever is Obama leading America down a path to Communism.

If anything, since George W Bush - and if you really want to delve down the rabbit hole and talk about the FED, the 2 national banks before it, the assassinations of the Presidents who abolished those banks. The UK support for Southern states in the war of independence and the very little time it took from the first US President and the founding fathers to break many of the promises and declarations they had created in the constitution - then you can go back much earlier.

However it seems since Bush at least you have been on a road to fascism and dictatorship rather than communism and Obama is only following the one party line you have in the USA rather than making meaningful changes. You need look no further than all the things that have happened since 9.11 ( a coup-d'etat ) to see this:

• The PATRIOT ACT brought in although many US politicians didn't even bother reading it amidst a climate of fear and staged Anthrax attacks to push those against it to support it.
• Also don't forget the Orwellian nature of the name here.  Anyone who didn't support the PATRIOT ACT was called un-patriotic although the act itself brought in emergency laws which Americans are still living under.
• The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which allows the US President to detain US citizens without trial on his say so alone.
• Over a decade of war against an "idea" and enemy that will and can never be beaten.
• Lost liberties (too many to count).
• The ending of habeas corpus.
• Torture and black hole prisons everywhere.
• Extraordinary renditions
• Sweeping wiretaps.
• A militarised police force
• Drones flying the US skies
• TSA grope or virtual strip searches at airports ensuring a loss in tourism trade at the very least.
• A "big brother at school like" tool to be used to take out another countries enemies i.e Israel.
• A loss of moral standing in the world.
• Most of all it has shown the one-sidedness of your political system.

Whether Republican or Democrat the same policies remain in place whoever wins the election. Continual war, loss of liberty, ambivalence to the constitution and Bill of Rights, bail outs to Wall St and friends of the politicians i.e crony capitalism, subservience to overseas masters and the targeted assassination of people on the say so of the leader of the country.

If that is not dictatorship I don't know what is.

So lets check what these words that are banded about on late night talk shows actually mean.

From the Oxford English Dictionary

Dictatorship

• government by a dictator:
• the effects of forty years of dictatorship
• [count noun] a country governed by a dictator.
• absolute authority in any sphere.

Communsim A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. Socialism

• A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• A policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
• The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy.

Liberal

• Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.
• Liberal views towards divorce.
• Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
• Liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform:
• A liberal democratic state
• relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party:
• the Liberal leader
• Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

Now although many Fox News presenters and their guests and many others like to call Obama a communist and compare what he is doing to the European socialists you need to understand that even in countries within Europe that have "socialist" parties like the UK used to with Old Labour they are not really true socialist countries.

Here in the UK since Tony Blair managed to turn the Labour party into a "3rd way" party we have little if no choice at the election box between proper alternatives in the same way as Americans don't.

As they say the Democratic party in the USA is the 2nd most conservative party in the world.

When we vote we don't get to vote on things that really matter like:

• If the surveillance police state would be rolled back or dismantled completely.
• If the money wasted on nuclear bombs and million pound planes and boats would be better spent educating people so we can live in a true meritocracy.
• Whether drugs should be legalised.
• Whether bankers should end up in jail when they ruin the worlds economy, fix Libor interest rates, launder money for Mexican drug cartels and terrorists as they have been proven to be doing continually.
• Whether lobbyists should be banned and political parties funded by tax payers.
• Whether we should pull our troops out of all the many war zones they are in and have a say in any future war that wastes millions, maims and kills thousands, and creates enemies for us to continually fight in the future.
• Whether we can pull out of the failed European project altogether or even join the Euro (for those numb-nuts that want to)

No we get to vote on things like.

• Who will cut the deficit a little bit faster or slower.
• Who "might" give us a vote on our staying in Europe (it doesn't actually matter as whoever wins always breaks this promise!)
• Will VAT / Sales tax go up a couple percent or not or income tax margins down or up a percent or two.
• Whether we slash 20% or 15% out of every ministry and public sector organisation - putting thousands on the dole and creating more deficit to pay back due to dole money.
• How much of the country should go from working in public sector jobs, paying taxes, paying for their families and homes and put them on the dole, increasing the national debt because the "private sector will rush in and fill the hole" - proved wrong so far Georgey boy!
• How much tongue should be put up the arse of the current US President just so we can say we are "special buddies" and all that crap.

So there is no real choice in elections and we are truly voting for our favourite colour or who we would go down the pub with for a beer.

All pure pony.

What I don't get in America is the talk of "entitlements" as if you would rather your taxes are spent shooting $500,000 missiles into mud huts in Somalia rather than being set aside to pay for you in old age.

Or for when you lose your job due to a bankster company or Republican candidate off-shoring it to India or China. Then the banks come and re-posses your home and you have no-one to help you but the state and you then realise that you should of voted for your taxes to be spent on community welfare not on overseas imperialism.

All you want is some help to stay housed, clothed and fed.

Why would you call that money you have given to the government an "entitlement" when it is paid back to you in negative terms?

Yes you are entitled to it as you have paid for it. Saving for a rainy day and all that.

Yes there are those people who haven't worked for generations. Lived off the dole and food stamps and couldn't get a job even if they wanted one because of the poor school they went to.

That is a different question and one which the richest country in the world should be able to solve without having such a disparity between the poor and middle class and the very rich.

Study after study shows that in countries (call them socialist if you want) where the gap between poorest and richest is narrowest there is more productivity and more general happiness in the population.


What is more important - that you pack as many boxes for your boss in the day and work yourself into an early grave or achieving some modicum of happiness in this short life we have?

Do you really want to live fighting against some belief system or theory you heard Glenn Beck talk about. Following his chalk board drawings which always lead up to the same leftist groups as evil puppet masters controlling the world.


Believe it or not there are two sides to the story and George Soros doesn't lie behind all of the left as their ultimate controller just as the Koch Brothers don't lie behind the right.

However as I wrote in a recent last essay once you have met Maslows hierarchy of needs and have all the money you could possibly wish for.

The only thing left to do with it is either spend it altruistically helping people or attempt to gain power by supporting politicans who will have to pay you back once they are elected.

So next time you call the President a Communist or a Socialist remember that they are different meanings from the word Liberal and not interchangeable. 


Plus to us overseas viewers will look at you as if you are an idiot for saying it.

Call him a fascist, call him illiberal and a warmonger but the American nation is as far away from Communist North Korea as the moon is from Earth.

Whether you chose to believe in the definition of the word or not a Liberal believes in free markets, freedom of choice, small government and of course social reform.

If we didn't have social reform we would still be chucking our human waste out into the middle of the street and dying of bubonic plague, whilst the rich held slaves as property and the poor had to send their children off to work as chimney sweeps just to earn a living.

Certain countries in this world still behave like this - it is not pleasant. You can believe it or not but there are good reasons for not wanting to stay in the 17th century.