Sony products designed to spy on you...

When I hear people say "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" when it comes to issue of spy cameras, national ID cards, biometrics and all the other rubbish, I almost always think "what an stupid idiot"

Quite apart from the fact most of DO actually have something to hide, the most important issue for me is that I have absolutely no faith that the establishment can be trusted with this information. I can guarntee they will use it to make ever more plausible false flag operations for their plutocratic ends. Not only that but the act of assembling this information simply provides ANYONE to access it.

The point has been made and I must really repeat it again, by the say NO to ID people [see here] people that the terrorists* wont be carrying their ID, they'll be carrying YOURS!

So cue now this report from the best PC mag in the UK, to which I subscribed for a number of years, PC PLUS, which describes yet another instance where SONY is spying on you.

Another rootkit found in Sony software

USB MicroVault ships with secret software - [see HERE]

 How dare they so such a thing to those good enough to buy their products.

Teach these spying sods at SONY a lesson...
  - Boycott SONY products and purchase goods
    from companies that do respect your privacy.

UPDATE:

To the swinehunt that say "we need ID card to pretect us from identity" I say this...

"Listen oinkies, The only reason why there is identity theft is becasue people are forced to adopt 'an identity' in the first place you idiots. By making people carry more identity that risk will actually increase. Now go squeal somewhere else!"

And...
a) What do you think the occurence of this id theft are?
b) How serious and long lived are the consequences?
c) How many people who report ID theft are govt agents or people working for the establishment or companies that will profiteer from an ID scheme?
d) And how many government agents are the ones who actually may swipe (or plant) peoples ID {thinks 9-11 and 7-7}

Government pigs a.k.a. proven murderers, stuff your ID card!

* yeah, I know.

Tony Blair - Mass Murdering Evil Piece of ....

Come to my house Tony for a cup of tea.
Come, please. I'm waiting for you.

Bet you never thought you'd ever see a real live Demon. Well you have, and most of you have been seeing him for at least ten years.

The nasty Zionist shill currently in occupied Palestine, adding insult to injury by taking up more land belonging to the Palestinians, raises his ugly head once again thanks to the rather helpful organization the BBC. [See here for the BBC's 'On this day' article entitled: 2003: Blair gives evidence to Hutton, - it is shockingly uncritical of the genocidalist bLiar]

This bLair beast, a man more evil than scores of mass killers, rapists, tortuerers and other butchers before him, knowingly lies to fulfill his blood lust. I wonder if the images of deaths of innocent people aroused him and brought him uncommon levels of ecstasy, as he wondered of a passing scream was the echo of a child in the death throws as his flesh burned ever deeply from white phosphorous.

I look forward to the day this maniac, this butcher dies and lies his blood soaked grave waiting to face the millions  he has helped slaughter.

Listen to this appalling dross on the BBC..

The experiments, described in the Science journal, offer a scientific explanation for a phenomenon experienced by one in 10 people.
Two teams used virtual reality goggles to con the brain into thinking the body was located elsewhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6960612.stm

I'm not even going to begin to explain how utterly stupid and actually redundant this "research" work is. This is so typical of 'popular science' - exactly the kind of utter crap the BBC twitters on about, which allows them not to discuss the REAL ISSUES such as the UK establishments involvement and very possible construction of the July 7 bombings in London 2005, or the US of I's involvement in 9-11 or the other encyclopaedia of atrocities they have committed for hundreds of years.

I really find that kind of 'output' (pooput) offensive.

May the diseased parts of the BBC, Fore fronted by the "NEWS" department, die a fast yet painful death!

Psssst. Don’t mention, mirrors, photographs, self portraits or video cameras.

I boycott {do not puchase) ANYTHING from the US and Israel. When overseas I also try to boycot British goods, even though I am British.

I even do not eat "food" like KFC or MuckDonalds becasue I dont want even a single penny going to the US Govt from corporation tax. KFC and MuckD's are American corporations and hence pay a part of their turnover revenue to the US Govt.

You can get good information about <a href="http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-israel.php">Boycotting here</a>

However a friend recently mentioned something very interesting about what I would call Boycott Plus!. Here's what he has to say:

Boycotting US / Israeli goods is not good enough because if we don't purchase those items, then somebody else will. It is better to vandalize items from those countries so that no one can purchase them and so that stores will stop carrying them. For example, if someone sees a shirt made in Israel, they can mark it with ink, or tear it with a small razor hidden between the fingers. A food item made in the US or Israel can be taken out of the fridge and placed in a warm part of the store. If a car dealer sells US made cars, then a "customer" can walk by and scratch the paint with a key.

someone replied:

Seriously, most Merchants have purchased these items wholesale so the unintended consequence is to damage the merchant and perhaps not even effect the producer.

Second, rather than risk arrest for vandalism, and allow people to castigate the cause with criminality, risk arrest for Ghandi like protests...and gain greater acclaim with similar or better result..

To which came the response:

During the US sanctions on Iraq, the US media announced that the US was pouring in counterfeit money into the Iraqi circulation.

The US media also announced that the US was dropping pamphlets into Iraq encouraging workers to show up to work late and other sorts of economic sabotage.

The US has committed overt and clandestine economic disruption in many other ways as well including economic hitmen, sanctions, industrial sabotages, etc.

Quid Pro Quo my friend.

Let them receive what they have done.

 Others then gave their ideas too.

1) ...whenever you're handed a US dollar note, write "down USA" or "USA kills children" on it with a sharpie. Its still legal tender, but it'll spread around and might catch on.

2) At school toilets, University toilets or even in shopping malls, bring a marker with you, and write some political arguement down. I guarantee you, the next time you visit there will be supporters a apposers arguing against each other through the wall like it wa a forum, most of the time there are more supporters dishing out propaganda. You're one sentence of vandelism can eventually take up the hole wall through other peoples hands. My favourite one was the statement "Bush = Hitler . 9/11 = Reichstag fire" You can also of cource deface wall's, I used chalk for one wall writing "NO WAR" or something of the sort and i still walk past and see it because people are just to lazy to wash it off. I've seen others deface walls that people drive by with "end war in the gulf". And vandalising posters of right wing politicians.

3) Speaking of Sharpie markers, one way to ruin clothes is to take them into the dressing room, mark them, and then leave them there and leave the store.

The stores' security systems are based on preventing people from shop lifting, not on vandalizing.

Also, while pretending to look through clothes on the racks, a sharpie pen can wreak havoc on many textiles objects. More importantly, these can all be done on accident.

Imagine the following hypothetical scenarios if someone should get caught:

"ooops, I didn't realize my pen was leaking."

"I forgot I had a razor in my hands, I use it to cut . . . . "

"Oh, I didn't mean to knock over that jar of Israeli made sauce."

"Oh, I didn't realize I was scraping against that car as I was walking by, sorry."

That way if someone gets caught (which they probably won't) they can just pay damages at worst.

Furthermore, if they do attempt to prosecute, a legal case can be held up in court for years and cost the state huge disproportionately to their incentives for pressing charges.

4) destroy pro-Israeli books in the children's section of a library. ...Someone needs to protect the children's minds from that twisted propaganda. I would have done more but I didn't have time. I've got too many other things going on. So, I encourage others to do what is right and ethical. We're struggling for truth against falsehood.

Wuch proposals were cautioned against:

1) Sticking to something like Boycott and love letters is something they cannot lock you up for and you'll be there to fight another day.

2) if we destroy their libraries, they will destroy ours, and before long everyone will be ignorant. Generally, vandalism will only bring about even more uneducated masses and even greater destruction. However, if that single act will save lives, it is no longer vandalism, but heroic! As with the B52 at Fairford, if enough could have been disabled to make a difference.

Caution two brought the response:

*  The aim is not to destroy libraries but to stop them from preying on the weak minded children out there. They've destroyed our libraries whenever they've entered our cities. They try to destroy our online communities by virtually ripping out pages of truth and then vandalizing them with their lies.

and

* Putting a pro-Israeli book in a library is a vandalism of that library. A library is a place for truth, not for excusing oppressors. How often have Zionists blocked the release of a documentary, or the publishing of a book because it was pro-Palestinian? Too often.

* People who have been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda permit their nation's bombers to be sent off to bomb other countries. Intellectuals who were brainwashed by Zionist propaganda as children are those who villainize countries that the Zionists wish to bomb. Some politicians and professors have sold out for money. But among the few honest ones, there are those who were brainwashed by Zionist propaganda as children, and they start wars or support wars that helps Zionists kill children. Destroying a bomber is good, but not as good as stopping the lunatic propaganda that permits them to be sent off in the first place. That's really saving lives.

Would you hear such a debate on TV. No of course you wouldn't!

source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/139032

I'm sick of idiots who simply repeat someone elses propaganda without giving it the slightest bit of thought as to what utter crap they are babbling out. I often {have to} listen to speeches where the "Globalization" lobbox is mentioned again and again. If the people who say these things (who are usually just reading off what someone else has written for them!) actually thought for a minute what it was they were advocating, then they'd surely, if they had any soul, they'd blush like they'd never blushed before.

Globalization is actually economic enslavement, the new 'acceptable' slavery. It is a disease, dont focus on the accidental garnish of it, like the internet. The core principle is fundamentally rotten to the core.

Such a case of Globalization is given by the excellent Investigatve reporter John Pilger, while investigating the scarey Rupert Murdoch's corrosive influence on that was once a Newspaper worthy of the name: The Mirror.

Below is an extract from the documentary: Breaking the Mirror. John Pilger and David Monro 1997

JP = John Pilger, Investigative Journalist, Humanitarian.
CH = Christopher Hird. Author of "Murdoch: The Great Escape"

Documentary: Breaking the Mirror. John Pilger and David Monro 1997

At the root of Murdoch’s profits and power, is his extraordinary talent for manipulating the tax laws of the countries he operates in. Since 1991 his London based company, "News International" has recorded profits of more than a billion (UK) pounds, on which it has paid virtually no tax.

Interview: JP: "Murdoch appears to pay little if any tax. How does he do it?"

CH "Well he does it because he's in international business. He operates all over the world, America, Australia, England, the far East. And therefore he can exploit two things. He can exploit the different tax rates that apply across the world and he can exploit different accounting provisions that apply across the world. if you take say somewhere like Australia, which has corporate tax rates, 20, 30 40%, depending on the size of your business and what type of business your in. Now one of the things he does is that he ensures those businesses, although they operate in Australia and the sell newspapers to Australian citizens and they broadcast television programs to Australian citizens, although they operate in Australia, there owned in a country like the Netherlands Antilles {a small island north of Venezuela) where tax rates are negligible in fact 1%. So that is how he does it."

JP: "Is that legal"

CH: "It's absolutely legal. This is what large multinationals try to do all of the time. It's constant guerrilla war, between companies on the one hand and the tax authorities on the other to try to stop this sort of thing happening."

JP: "So there ate two different tax rules. There's the tax rules for you and me and there’s tax rules for Murdoch"

CH: "Yeah. These guys aren’t like us. They see it as a challenge to avoid paying any taxes so that they continue to get their businesses to grow. They are a different class of people. These are the ‘overclass’. These are the ones who want to rule the world, and they don’t want to pay us for the privilege for doing so."
-----------------------------

Stonehenge

Even though the Druidic / Pagan rituals it was supposedly designed for are in stark contrast to my beliefs, I love Stonehenge. There is a magic there and about the whole place.

But, it was voted one of the worlds most disappointing tourist attractions. Aparently somone said it's "just a pile of old stones".

I wonder what kind of person would make a remark like that? And what they were expecting?

Here's my guess:

This Interview between Lenny Charles of INN and Greg Palast ias about 3 months old. It has caused controversy for its “9-11” content of it. However I have seen no comment on the Iraq part of it. Hopefully when you watch the video and read Palasts interview statements and my comments you will realize that there is a whole other issue that has gone totally un-noticed. This interview is still actuallyt ‘fresh news’.

Greg’s VERY bad day! 

The following interview between Greg Palast and Lenny Charles of INN, came to my attention thanks to the Stef the man behind the the blog “Famous for 15 megapixels", Palast actually went knocking on INN's door for the interview, if not to promote his new book, "Armed Madhouse", then hopefully to do what he seems to like doing: exposing the lies of the "lawmaking lawbreakers" in the US administration. Palast does well to expose the illegal actions of the Karl Rove mafia, but shortly afterwards, Lenny addresses another topic in the book, Iraq.

Lenny says “[269] Within the book you talk a lot about the war for oil, otherwise known as the Neocons great big business development deal. This is all in the name of {the} free market." Lenny says Michael Moore highlighted this in his movie, showing “contracts being handed out, giant conferences of this before that {the contracts being handed out}, but you look at it in a different way. How do you see it?". Palast replies:  [296] "Iraq's a profit sector. First of all, I know that a lot of people who watch INN are conspiracy nuts who think that George Bush had a secret plan to seize {Palasts emphasis} the oil fields of Iraq before the tanks rolled {in}. Which isn’t true. He had two plans. We got both in the book" Huh? First of all, how does Palast know about the views of I.N.N.'s viewers? Has he spent time researching INN's audience and why would he have done any such research? How exactly, does he 'know' that they will believe in? He's obviously generalizing and I don't think the viewers will welcome his insult. Secondly, and here he actually trips himself up, because how would Bush seize the oil without sending in the tanks? Again... "To seize the oil before the tanks rolled {in}." I've never heard ANYONE make a claim anywhere near that, a claim which is plain weird. Palast has actually just attached a straw man to INN viewers. Lastly, you can tell from the intonation of his voice that, he’s taking the mick out of them calling them “conspiracy nuts” because they believe in the ‘secret’ element of all this. Yet cool as a cucumber, immediately after making this slur, the says there were TWO secret plans. Ho ho! Not even a bead of sweat on him. Either Palast has the potential to be the worlds best poker player or the he simply doesn’t care about that the hell he’s saying.  By Palasts own standards of ridicule, is therefore 200% nuttier than the average INN viewer. Sadly, in the interview we are only informed of one plan, well, I can understand because he wants us to buy his book doesn't he, so fair enough. Its not a talking book session is it. Greg says "[318] Here's the documents, here's the contracts" but then he realises he’s leading to a contradiction as he’s already moving away from 'contracts'  mentioned earlier by Lenny earlier, and will go on to argue more strongly against the contracts (i.e. <u>developing</u> the oil) issue, later. Yet again, exposing his nuttyness, he says "Here's the secret documents saying what were going to do with the oilfields of Iraq" Palast continues: "[325] These things were developed by the way, beginning Dec 2002 a month before the Inauguration. Forget Sept 11th, Sept 11th was just you know, the sales pitch" Greg, I think the inauguration was Jan 2001. Perhaps he made a simple mistake. To have benn one month before the inauguration, that would have had to be Dec 2000, so Palast is not one, but two years out which is a bit strange. And of course if this was developed in 2000, therefore once again, Palasts previous scoff at people believing in a "secret plan", is very wrong. But what is more strange is what he says about the ‘sales pitch‘ of 9-11. A sales pitch is a strategy designed to help sell a product. Lets look at some possibilities of what Palast is saying here:

a) Palast is displaying a mild possibly temporary form of Turrets syndrome and words are just popping out of his mouth with no control or thought. As a journalist, that should not happen.

b) The huge, history-making world-shaping plan for Iraq had been devised was just lying on the shelves, and following another huge, history-making world-shaping event, 9-11, it became viable to take it off the shelves. To the lying bastards shame (if he had the ability to feel shame) it is indisputable that Bush attached 9-11 to Iraq, but the chance that both of these coincided is just far too improbable to be credible.

c) Like most sale pitches, they are planned in coordination with the product release, 9-11 was the sales pitch which allowed for the invasion of Iraq. And of course Iraq was just one aspect referring to of course, Afghanistan. This is by far the most likely of these possibilities. And of course it’s all there in the PNAC document ‘rebuilding Americas defences’. Not that you’ll hear much reference back to this on the mainstream media (MSM), but when the Taliban were in power, they went to Texas [1,2,3] to try and negotiate a deal with Unocal, but ended up rejecting it. This highlights the fact that the Taliban were being treated as Afghanistan’s official leadership. It seems like only when the deal fell through did the US and the ‘international community’, a euphemism for the western bullies and those bullied by them, did the Taliban’s supposed tyranny become the antithesis of an acceptable society. That the US has made an alliance with men who tie and kill the opponents to the caterpillar track of a tank and that tens of thousands of civilians have been annihilated by US led forces is as they describe ‘regrettable’. The catalyzing “new Pearl Harbour” allowing the attempt at full spectrum dominance was certainly fortunate. Not quite sure how to describe the rest of it thought: The shorting of airline stocks, no hijackers names on the manifests, Intelligence and investigators orders not to pursue the alleged hijackers, Dr. Steve Jones’s hard physical forensic evidence that cutter charges were used, that the US had received multiple warnings about the attacks, project Bojinka, Cell phone calls at 33,000 ft, Washington’s sir defences not working that day, William Rodregez’s evidence of explosions in the sub-basement. The seismic evidence of explosions happening. The squibs from haematically sealed building. The heat of the pentagon crash vaporizing plane components yet not combustible DNA of the victims. The symmetrical collapse of WYC 7. Guess that’s ‘fortunate too’

------------------------------------------------
footnotes:
[1] BBC: Taliban in Texas: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
[2] Asiatimes: An article I love: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FE18Aa03.html
[3] BBC: Post Taliban US Puppet Afghani govt, mow miraculously agreeing a pipeline:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

Let's move on... "[337] There were two plans, and one plan was {the} neocon plan which was 'we're gonna remake Iraq, we're gonna privatize everything, we're gonna sell everything off, which they did. The problem with selling off Iraq’s banks, Iraq’s bridges and Iraq’s water systems is that the people of Iraq only had bags of those Saddam dinars. They couldn't buy their own country back. It was sold off. Every Iraqi bank was sold to a consortium controlled by Leeman brothers. Every bakery was sold to the Russians and Chinese. It was a tragedy. They had lost all their industry. Anything worth having, was simply grabbed with both hands. Here's the odd one. People says 'Yeah but they didn't privatize the oilfields they didn't sell off the oilfields' because {do} you know who objected? They didn't care  what the Iraqi’s said, BIG OIL objected, Chevron objected, Exxon objected, Why would the oil companies object to selling off Iraq’s oil fields??? The answer is, they'd been in the mid-east a long time. “That's not how you do it. You don’t take title, you take control.” They need a state oil company to have control to suppress oil production in Iraq, see because the basic rule of oil production is lower the supply, the higher the price, so they had this whole scheme going...[418]"

Lets examine this. The bakeries were sold to the Russians and the Chinese? Eh? That's a new one, and I dare say, its new to the Russians and the Chinese too! I must ask the next Russian or Chinese person I see this following question "Do you think your country did the right thing in buying all those Iraqi bakeries, especially as the Iraq war was rumbled on?" I can imagine their reaction. Perhaps 'bakery' is a slang word for something that Palast seems privy too. Assuming the Russian or Chinese person doesn’t run off to call the men in white coats on me, perhaps the subject of my question could then go on to explain Palasts other gem that to gain control of Iraq’s oil it’s best not to purchase {steal} it. Greg is clearly climbing the 'lobbox scale' right now.. At this point, Palast adopting a persona of your typical dude on the street, expressing the dudes view on the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, around the 7m:03s mark, the 'dude' says, "[420] We went into Iraq for the oil." to which Palast reverts back to himself to rebuff, treating us to his razor analysis: "We didn't!" He says, hoping his forceful gesticulations will add credence to his words. "We did not go into Iraq for the oil. We went into Iraq to make sure we didn’t GET the oil. There's a lower the supply the higher the price.[431]".

Hummm. So if military action wasn’t taken, then Iraq oil would have ended up in the hands of the US. This kind of thinking is new to me. A strategy of pre-emptive "passive procurement prevention". Palast’s just let rip his very own Bushism. Perhaps the oil molecules and barrels were infiltrated by Al-Qaeda and were going to float across the sea to the US and refuse to be owned by anyone else.  Naturally, oil falling into the hands of the oil companies had to prevented at all costs. As for controlling them by purchasing them I guess is impossible according to Palast. So, lesson for the day. If I am in possession of something or If I have bought it, there is no way I can control it. I confess, it may take me some time to accept this new way of thinking. Let me have a first stab: I don't want to rob the bank so I should adorn a balaclava and tote a gun in my local branch and tell the cashier to put the money in this swag bag. Is that right Greg? I’ve heard that Halliburton and the big oil companies are making HUGE profits from the high price of oil, so in that respect Palasts theory is somewhat credible. I don’t think the US admin really gives an owls hoot about US consumers paying more for its gasoline. The military industrial complex always wins from war and the little guys lose. BUT again, this could be achieved by purchasing Iraq’s oil companies. By leaving Iraq’s oil open to possible bids from ‘hostile’ countries, i.e. countries that might provide some resistance to US hegemony, then they certainly wouldn’t have control over that slice of the oil market. Additionally, isn’t it said that the house of Saud runs it’s oil policy in accordance with US interests in exchange for US protection ensuring Saudi longevity? If Palasts low supply - high price is true, then wouldn’t the US simply request that Arabia should cut its supply? ---INSERT SAUDI OIL PRODUCTION FIGURE ---.
 Also, the higher the price of oil, the more it will invigorate the Chinese to try and secure sources. Additionally the more it empowers Russia (1^st or 2^nd largest producer beside Saudi Arabia), Venezuela and Iran. The more impoverished its new Ally India (formely closer to Russia) Japan and the UK will be. That’s not all the more Iraq stifles production, the greater its power will be in the future when its relative share of reserves increases.So sorry Greg I think you've dropped a multi faceted clanger. "[424] We went into Iraq to make sure we didn't get the oil. Classic! One last thing… You said the oil companies have been in the middle east for a long time and that “you don’t get control by title”, so these well established companies have a long history of control by non-procurement – Really Greg. Really?

Greg then tells us "[430] Saddam wanted to sell more oil. Remember were the ones that limited him, we had something called an ‘oil for food programme' right? [437]Very little food for them, a whole bunch of.... very little oil for us. The result being that we had a… that … as… we limited Saddam to 2 million barrels of oil a day….. we ended up … with um .. with.. their wanting to sell us more but that would bring down the price of oil, big oil companies weren’t going to go along with that.  I have the documents in here. They haven’t denied it. Who wanted to put(?) Iraq’s oil plans? The big oil companies.?   " Whooops! Greg was going to say ‘a whole bunch of oil for us’ at [437] but realised this was might have been the straw that broke the camels back – his whole daft argument which so far may well have gone undetected unless one was carefully scrutinizing his words as I am doing here. He changed from “a whole bunch” to “very little” but his correction actually directly contradicts his whole argument, because, if very little oil was getting out, then obviously the oil was ALREADY restricted!! Another major clanger! "[445] We limited Saddam to 2 million barrels of oil a day." Which is a surprising figure considering Iraq’s dire infrastructure at that time (see ref [8] and comments) but he drops yet another clanger when he said "We ended up with their {Saddam} wanting to sell us more" How exactly Greg? Was Saddam going to set up his own version of the UN and vote himself a new larger quota? Or magic himself the parts needed to extract the oil, reveal an arsenal of bomb proof oil carrying containers able to deliver oil across the globe? Or perhaps Saddam can cast magic spells like 'charm' or 'beguilement' where upon a request by Saddam the whole world is powerless to resist. The USUK invasion of Iraq because Saddam wanted to sell us more oil really is top of the lobbox scale Greg. You can tell Greg realises the culmination of the clangers he's dropped is closing of all escape avenues, the bubble is going to burst, and he’s clamouring around to tries to force an opening out of the hole he's dug himself into, hopeful that nobody has noticed ridiculousness of what he just said, making his return to the authority of the documents. Aha! Greg pulls out his magic wand, cleverly disguised as that Jimmy Cagney hat - when it all going down the hole, mention the infallible documents!!!  But oh dear! Looks Like Lenny’s spotted the clangers Greg, and the sod's not keeping his trap shut over it either. What kind of damn interview etiquette is that where an interviewer points out the fact you've just talked a load of poo?

Lenny tells us that [465]  1) Paul Bremmer originally came up with privatizing Iraqs oil  2) the Iraq study group recommended, almost insistent {in} privatizing Iraq’s oil it 3) and the Democrats are going along with privatizing Iraqs oil. 4) The Iraq congress had yet to vote on the Iraq hydrocarbon law [Ed: this interview was made in about May 2007] and 5) Dick Cheney recently just went over there and said we don’t want this two month vacation {to delay the Iraqi hydrocarbon law.} But then Lenny lets him off the hook. Nooooooo! Damn Lenny! Lenny asks if the book’s being translated into Arabic. Palast, no doubt grateful that he doesn't have to doesn’t these particular serious challenges to his theory, answers yes, but Palast returns to the “going into Iraq so that we don’t get the oil’ malarkey.

He says: “[505] So that the Iraqis can actually see the oil plans that have been drafted for them…  After a year and a half after going literally under cover to get the secret state department and defence department plans for the oil fields of Iraq. Its called “Options for Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry” Now this is OUR state department saying what the Iraqi oil industry could be. There is not one single Iraqi involved in discerning what their options are to be right. Were telling them, that every option is the same. Every option has one single purpose as they said. Quote: [542] “To enhance Iraq’s relationship with OPEC.” The oil cartel controlled by Saudi Arabia. Now who wrote this document? It was written in Iraq’s capital which is.. Houston. It was written by James Bakers people. Who’s James Baker? James Baker the consigliore for the bush family, the lawyer for Exxon corp. and the lawyer for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Exxon, the Bushes and Saudi Arabia came up with a plan for Iraq. Iraqi’s weren’t invited to the meeting. 323 pages, I have the whole thing. Its marked ‘secret confidential’. This isn’t from my black helicopter Lenny. I put it at the top of the BBC nightly news, I cannot get it into the US news for anything but maybe be translating into Arabic it can kind of sneak through. Do you know how it’s getting into Iraq? The soldiers are carrying my book into Iraq. There breaking it into chapters and passing it around. Its very, very popular in Baghdad.[600]”

I can appreciate the humour that Iraq’s capital is Houston (at least I think it’s humour, but after all the other lobbox you’ve said, suddenly I’m not so sure!) and wait a minute Greg. Saudi doesn’t control the cartel. It may be a power player, but it doesn’t control it. US soldiers are bring your book into Iraq? Really? Wow. Soldiers know of the lies yet continue to fight when they know they are fighting for big oil?

“[637] It is in the sense that these are vulture opportunists. The second, the, before the towers fell when they were hit, but before then even fell, they were already saying ‘Were going after Iraq’ Which had of course nothing whatsoever, at all, to do with Osama Bin Laden, In fact,  Osama was at war with Saddam, because Saddam was a secularist and opposed, in fact, Al-Qaeda in Iraq was first there to attack Saddam the guys we’re fighting now, in other words, we have opened the door to these guys. Well everyone, but that a story that I’m not breaking. What I did have in, what I do have in Armed Madhouse is something called the ‘1 – 99 I’ document, which I have in my last book, “The best Democracy money can buy”, and I can take the story further. What is that document,  It’s a document with, that we put on BBC television again, there’s not some crazy stuff from a black helicopter, it’s on BBC television, we obtained it from unhappy FBI agents and we got confirmation from unhappy CIA agents, that the Bush administration told the intelligence agencies ‘You may not investigate the Bin Laden family in the US. They are running a suspected terrorist organization, that’s what it says, Write on the document, they were not allowed to Investigate” The same FBI and CIA agents that said that said they were prevented in stopping 9-11?

Lenny: “[716] In the past several weeks we have had an astrophysicisist we had on several others that said that the towers could not have come down by the planes and especially tower seven. No building has ever come down from fire. Do you believe that those two planes took down those three world trade centre towers?”

“[730] Its not a question of belief, it’s a questions of whether I have any other information. Look I gotta tell ya Lenny, I’m just kinda stuck with this  one. I’m an investigative reporter. If I haven’t Investigated it, I cant report on it.” Is Palast saying he hasn’t investigated the mechanics of 9-11 either from planes, fire or just WTC 7? This is important as we will see from the proceeding statements Palast makes “…Then I’m just giving you my goofball opinion. I’m not an engineer, I’m not a physicist, I had an office in the world trade centre, but that’s all I can tell you. I can tell you what I found which is that they couldn’t look, You know…  to me you know, I mean I see like everyone else, I see the picture, it looks to me like planes hitting the building any my info doesn’t comport with the idea of  like, a controlled demolition. We have looked at that and I’m sorry if people are upset about this but we spent a long time very, very seriously looking at that and that just didn’t happen.”

It looks like Greg IS addressing the issue of the planes bringing down the towers, but he has implied he hasn’t investigated it! Then almost immediately afterwards, lets us know he’s spent a long time, very, very seriously looking at controlled demolition (CD). If ‘We’  {who exactly is he talking about amongst the ‘we’? People at Popular Mechanics perhaps?} looked so seriously at CD, then why not the planes which is afterall the main and official version cause of the towers collapse. Having been so concerned about CD, isn’t it prudent to question the official line also and not just question the ‘conspiracy theories’? Such an act is exactly what establishment goons would do.

Lenny: “The only information we have on that, just to finish up on this. was the NIST report, and your saying in 90% of what the government says you doubt and you’ve done investigative reporting and you’ve found out that they tend to lie a lot, but in this particular case you choose to believe the administrations line on what happened here. That to me is surprising”. “[799]

 I don’t know everything [Ed: fair enough] and you know, neither Bush or Bin Laden send me their letters. Karl Rove does, he sent them accidentally to me through his e-mail because he misaddressed his little e-mails and I got 500 of them, I kid you not., so I mean its not a question of, look, the Bush administration is almost systematic in its prevarication and audacity, when they things like we never thought of aeroplane would hit a building and you know it’s like complete, as we’d say in Britain, ‘bollocks’ errrm. You know, so you cant know one, no sentient human is going to believe the stories told by the Bush administration about the attack on America. [842] The question is alternative theories are very difficult to prove because, well their difficult,  you can posit other theories, but that we can’t prove either, the problem is the administration. My concern is that the administration is lying. It’s such baloney, that it allows, its like a Petri dish for allowing all kinds of other stuff to grow up, which may or may not hold water. I mean I can’t look at all these, but you know, controlled demolition I could rule out, and I sorry, we just, we just, it rules out.  But on the other hand, and it also doesn’t comport with the other information we have about Bin Laden attacking ‘cos if you know they said ‘don’t look at Bin Laden’ well if there going to have a controlled demolition, I mean,  the information we had, that was put out by people like ‘the towers didn’t lean over and stuff’ actually is just factually false. They towers did lean over. They did lean, and its that simple, and the, so the information that was given out . I haven’t seen any Engineer, {Palast adjusts the knot of his tie. Getting hot Greg?} it takes two years to wire a building for controlled demolition. And that’s an awful lot of people, you’d have to snuff an awful lot of people. It’s Occams razor. If you going to take out a building and you can do it by, Look, remember something. The US government hired Bin Laden, to kill people in Afghanistan why cant they hire Bin Laden for something else, I mean. That’s another theory. You know, it’s, you gonna take out the buildings, your not going to do it with dynamite, you know it’s just not going to happen. And There’s zero evidence, I mean when I say there’s zero evidence I mean there absolutely stone cold nothing, nothing there. I’m sorry Lenny its like I tell ya.”  

Lenny: “[936] I have a collation of scientists who would beg to differ.”

“No no no (more no’s). There’s are no sci… There’s no Engineer, You can have ballroom dancers, you can have, um, you a have um, you know, great actors, you can have poets, you can have physicists em,  and there’s a guy Dr. Jones, his last big theory is that Jesus met with the Mayans after the resurrection, errrm, he’s a complete fruitcake and a complete and utter fraud, Mr. Jones, come at me, and now, here’s what I wanna do, you know at a certain point, we have to, what were doing is legitimizing a government, we have to be very careful when we talk about 9-11 truth, that what we don’t let happen while their story isn’t believable, that we don’t come up with such goofball theories that are so easily disprovable that they discredit questions raised about this administration."

Yeah, caution is good Greg, what about caution of pushing rather strange lines on the reasons for invading Iraq?

Lenny: "We fully disagree. The book is Armed Madhouse, there’s a lot of great information and I hear its available free speeches pledge drive that going on right now.”

Palast: “[996] You can get a free speech pledge drive at your local Pacifica station, INN anyone, what I wanna do is make sure that independent, un-bought,. Un-bossed media gets this word out because as Karl Rove said ‘we are very lucky that the US media, national media as not picked up on the investigations of Armed Madhouse, well Lenny has, INN and I really want to thank you, for actually kind of sneaking me through  the electronic Berlin wall that these guys have set up in bringing my reports back home. Lenny you are going very, very important work. I hope you out there have some strong idea how powerful and important INN is, because if it weren’t for INN, you are going to see nothing. That little eyeball that you see on the CBS logo, that’s not an eyeball, it’s a pimple on the corporate rectum of Viacom, what your gonna see here is truth, every second, every 24 frames a second of truth and I really appreciate that Lenny, for the opportunity to talk.”

Lenny: “Greg Palast I couldn’t have said it better myself.  Thank you foe joining us at INN.”

END

Refs: [8] http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/index.html (report date: 4 March 2003)Actually, when checking Palasts figure, I noticed only 1.9m barrels per day, not 2m, a 5% error, and this is the figure reported for only one week. 22-28 February. The week before there was only 1.7m per day, a 15% error. Additionally, the UN reports predictions that over 5 December 2002 – 3 June 2003, 143.8m barrels would have gone through the program, making an average, over 181 days, of  only 0.79 million barrels per day, a 60.5% error. Of course the US destruction of Iraq began on 20^th March in-between that projected period, but that 0.79m figure would likely be based on reasonably accurate prediction based on permitted sales. The UN also reports… Some 3.4 billion barrels of Iraqi oil valued at almost $64 billion have been exported under the programme since December 1996. (up to Feb 28^th 2003) making at least 2243 days, giving an average of 1.52 million barrels of oil at most. A 24.2% error by Palast. Even though these lower figures would have helped Palasts ‘Saddam wanted to sell us more’, argument, he didn’t use them exhibiting sloppy journalism.   Another curious thing about the UN report reports the revenue primarily in euros, not dollars. E.g. ”€345 million (euros) or $370 million, at current prices and rate of exchange.” Dollars are mentioned only after mention of converting into dollars. A number of commentators have said that Saddam was invaded because he was going to use euro’s as the medium of exchange instead of dollars, but if the UN (of which the US was a major player) was the one doing these contracts in euros then it makes that theory less likely.

Re: The utterly unfounded defamation by Greg Palast on Dr. Steve Jones, see Palasts weak apology to Dr. Steven Jones here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10606, title: "An apology and hope for reasoned discourse"

Also: see: http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2984
For an interesting article:

The Zionist Gatekeeper
Greg Palast & His Attack on Dr. Jones
and 9-11 Truth  Posted By: Christopher Bollyn
Date: Saturday, 11 August 2007, 6:18 a.m. In Response To: 'The Bollyn Trial:
The Criminalization of an Outspoken Journalist'
( Christopher Bollyn ) By Christopher Bollyn www.bollyn.com

AND A Palast article on this subject (hopefully less ridiculous)
At: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37371/
Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground

By Greg Palast, AlterNet. Posted June 14, 2006.

Did the U.S. invade Iraq to tap its oil reserves or to make sure they stayed under the sand?

BBC Reoprts on its headline page:

BUT look at this...

The price of gold has FALLEN!

My analysis: The "sub-prime" issue are a HOAX.
There is no way a FEW loan defaulters could wipe 4% of the value of UK companies. Cheap covering loans from Japan and Switzerland are available, Defaulting loand can be kept alive or resold, or re-regotiated or even re-valued.

It's a HOAX folks! The US still has a number of cards up its sleeves before their country and economy impledes and it will. You know when it will becasue the price of Gold will skyrocket.

We are seeing a cashing in of stockmarket profits. Its going to be bumpy if you are playing that financial game.

A flase flag is likely to occur, The US then move to dictatorial rule and I can't imagine that it's going to ne a despised Neocon at the healm but eventually a DEMOCRAT after the election.

Predictions are fun, but this is deadly serious. I may be (I hope) utterly wrong, but that is how I call it right now.

A colleague e-mailed me (via mass mail) today:

This is intended for old dinosaurs (like me) with antique dinosaur computers (like mine) running obsolete dinosaur software (like my Office XP) who are not aware of what's happening outside.

The latest incarnation of Microsoft Office -> Office 2007 - uses a new file format based on XML interoperability and ZIP compression.
Microsoft claims that this reduces file size and allow documents to be shared on any platforms (the Open Document Format people disagrees, but that's another story).

Anyway, the basic Office suite-> Word 2007, Excel 2007, Powerpoint 2007 will by default save files as .docx, xlsx and pptx (note the extra 'x')

You guess it, here's the catch :
Older version of MS Office (ver 2003 and below) cannot open or read these new file formats.
I had my first dose of embarassment two days ago when I had to plead someone to please resend a .docx file in the old .doc format.

Solutions:
1. Best option: Everybody upgrade to MS Office 2007.
Caveats :-
Not all computers can run it
Do we even have Office 2007 yet? We are always 1-2 years behind. Even the viruses that infects our PCs are old viruses that nobody wants anymore (pun intended)

2. 2nd best : Download and install a compatibility pack from Microsoft
This allows you to open the new MS Office 2007 files using MS Office XP, 2001 or 2003
    Here's the link : http://office.microsoft.com/search/redir.aspx?AssetID=DC101298101033&CTT=5&Origin=HA100444731033
Caveats :-
Leaves much to be desired. A lot of formatting is lost. Text gets flipped here and there. Can't save what you opened unless you install something else. (Didn't bother, too complicated, sorry) and you need to have all the critical office updates installed before you can even use this. Specifically you need MS Office Service Pack 3.

3. 3rd best - the .docx, xlsx, pptx files are technically zipped versions of xml files. So you can actually change the file extension to .zip, and unzip it as usual. Then look for a file with the .xml extension, and open it in a web browser.
Caveats :-
(obvious isn't it - open in a web browser)

4. 4th lousy option - Beg people not to send you .docx, .xlsx or .pptx files

5. Worst case scenario - Library Unit suddenly declared that everything must be in the new .docx format.

Globalizationally yours forever...
LW.