Skip to content or view screen version

Video of Brian Haw supporters waiting to greet PM.

Doug. | 24.05.2006 15:02 | SOCPA | London

Protest against the police action of Tuesday 23 May in London's Parliament Square.

Apart from Brian's display there were several others. Although they all had police permission to demonstrate within the SOCPA exclusion zone, conditions imposed on Brian were much stricter. Some had no conditions at all! The police also tried to impose an on-the-spot condition on Brian supporters about banner holding. When Tony Blair arrived for Question Time he was greeted with cries of 'Nazi Blair'.

More details:



Hide the following 3 comments

Many will confront Blair, but who will stop him?

24.05.2006 22:20

Does Blair care though? Do you really think Blair is unaware of how many people now hate and fear him across the UK.

Everytime Blair's fist strikes a new target, it becomes that much easier for him to do it again. So we see how he becomes stronger, but what about us?

Blair has taken on Brain Haw, held his breath, and discovered once again that there is NO negative consequence to any of his actions, no matter how appalling. A few anonymous faces shouting rude words at him bothers him not at all.

Between now and the Party Conference Season, Blair fully hopes to have his War against Iran begun (it looks more and more as if Blair will choose the false-flag at the World Cup scenario- Merkel is the right person in the right place at the right time). The circumstances of this war have Blair CONVINCED that in its immediate aftermath, he can complete his police-state to ensure that it is GAME-OVER for anybody that would even attempt to protest against him.

The Conservative and Liberal parties are all prepared and ready to enter a formal coalition with the New Reich party at the onset of war, with Blair as the de-facto wartime leader of the UK. Blair will ensure that the circumstances leading up to the war will make many of his more naive opponents doubt their previous opposition to Blair (Hitler had to achieve the same mental shift amongst a sizeable chunk of his citizens). The rest of us will have our worst fears confirmed.

Brian Haw wants people to see the true face of Blair's war crimes, rather than the sickening pro-war lies that spews from every area of the Mass Media. Of course, the Internet ensures that those that care about the truth (regardless of the wishes of what seems like 50% of those commenting here) have faster and more complete access to it than at any time in history.

The point of Mr. Haw is NOT that he is the only (or even a significant) way for people to see the horrors that Blair has inflicted on children. No, the point of Mr Haw is that circumstance and context have raised him as an individual to the same iconic level as Blair. Brian Haw is Blair's greatest anti-war enemy as a consequence of fate, the fate due to one man who determined to be ABSOLUTE in his every action to bring global awareness of Blair's CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

Brain Haw positioned himself with great thoughtfulness, of course. He wanted Blair, and his high-ranking scum, to have to explain themselves to their murderous guests everytime they passed within his sight. "Mr Blair, if you are so powerful, how is it that you allow this man to mock you so openly in the very vicinity of your authority", is the conversation imagined between Blair and psychopathic guest from Israel, Africa, the US, Russia, etc, etc.

Each and every time Blair, or one of his New Reich Lieutenants had to grind their teeth as they passed by Brain Haw (and remember, the vast majority of the Liberal Party, and the Conservative Party in the House of Commons agreed with Blair's efforts to remove Mr Haw), Brain Haw's power increased.

Blair's only good fortune here was this- a man who chooses to protest alone is MOST unlikely to use any power that he accidently gains to place himself at the head of a movement. Brain Haw is a type we may describe as meta-alpha, a person whose qualities rise well above so-called alpha-types, and who exist to warn non-alphas of the mostly unseen dangers in the alphas that they are currently being led by. Meta-alphas have no desire to lead whatsoever, but are sickened by the ease with which alpha types are able to take advantage of those that seemingly have a pathological desire to be mastered. Meta-alphas, of course, are NEVER followers of alphas, and thus do not participate in a standard group with leader dynamic.

Of course meta-alphas may well lay down written or spoken doctrines that some alphas may later take advantage of in order to have greater control of their group. This could be called the meta-alpha as prophet, a strictly abusive position if there was an intent to weaken the position of those being led for the benefit of an ideology, 'master-race', or to magnify the rewards acruing to the alphas.

(Damn, I should be more careful, I might be accused by some here of 'thinking' again.)

Of course, the anti-war movement already has its 'alphas' in the mostly retired Benn, and the oh-so-active Galloway. Unfortunately, those that are willingly led tend to be the least critical of all people, and demand little from their leaders except the right kind of reassuring words. Conmen have ALWAYS known that words are the cheapest weapons of all, and those that can be lied to are endlessly amazed that there exist people who would NEVER think twice about lying if lying would bring a reward.

(I have personally witnessed a close one, having had the door-to-door gas/electricity change-utility-signature-con previously explained to them is total detail, converse with such a con person, and agree to sign said con-person's sheet. My intervention at that point led to abuse from both parties, and some time later this close one- alone this time- DID sign such a document, and then was shocked to find that they had been conned. THERE IS NO ACCOUNTING FOR HUMAN NATURE.)

Galloway is safe from Blair because Galloway serves Blair's purposes perfectly. This, of course, is no coincidence. Galloway was originally the government's BAG-MAN to Iraq and certain other Middle-East interests that the UK government could not be seen having direct contact with. This is a very similar situation to that which exists between the US and Iran (and has done for years). Officially, the US is allowed no contact with Iran (they have actual laws passed in congress that make this so). However, some of you may remember the US's own Galloway, Oliver North.

The psychology is simple. The security services identify a need for a 'maverick' personality type, so that plausible-deniability may be used if the contact runs into real trouble, or there is any backlash that makes public knowledge of links with the rogue nation too dangerous to tolerate. Ken Livingstone, likewise, was the BAG-MAN operating between the UK government, and the IRA.

A side-consequence of using operatives like Oliver North, Galloway, and Livingstone is that as their public profile grows, they start to attract a cult following by sub-alphas that think they have spotted their perfect leader. Now combine this with a person like Blair, who not only needs a safe opposition, but anticipates a powerful anti-war movement that will most definitely form when he reveals the full extent of his post-911 war plans.

Benn is too old, and too 'close' to the New Reich. Galloway ends up as a definite maybe. Of course, if Galloway is up to the job, he MUST achieve two objectives. To cast the anti-war movement as a radical-muslim movement. More importantly, HE MUST ENSURE THAT NO ANTI-WAR PARTY STANDS IN MORE THAN A TINY PROPORTION OF SEATS AT ANY ELECTION. This second objective must have struck Blair and Galloway as somewhat tricky, given even the looney crossed-legs trampoline bouncers of a few years back stood in almost every seat. However, the plan was to have the Green Party appear everywhere as the safe sponge for 'protest votes', with the much discussed BNP and Respect party strangely absent from most ballot papers.

Even today, with all the evidence against Galloway, I know that 99.99% of you still believe in him under the ludicrous principle that its just not fair to imagine a world where none of the high profile political leaders represent your point of view. However, that is how so-called democracy works in much of the world- give people no choice at all, and tell them this is all the choice they need. Of course, the other reason you follow Galloway is the psycholgical need to see someone 'stick it to Blair'. However, think on this, gentle reader. Some of the worst monsters in history had court jesters, whose job it was to 'stick it to the boss'. Now, how many jesters EVER bought down a monster? You think Blair does anything but laugh when jester Galloway has a go at him.

When you saw Galloway in Big Brother, you saw a smart, adaptable, two-faced individual, who had not the slightest problem getting down on all fours and mewing like a cat. He showed all the flexibility and sophistication required to understand the import of Blair's instructions, and to execute his plans perfectly. As for Galloway's motivation, well I don't really care, since people at that level have a world view that goes way beyond most people's simple-minded view of wealth and power. However, I would note that Galloway's affection for certain Middle East tribes is no doubt genuine, and Blair could easily convince Galloway that his play is intended to destroy shia power forever, an outcome that could easily be imagined to Galloway's liking.

And what about the anti-war movement with respect to the coming War with Iran? We know the UN is NOT going to sanction war, or anything like it, but the UN ***WILL*** sanction the idea that it is very wrong and scary for Iran to be associated with nuclear weapon research. This is enough for Blair, who will say that even this position clearly shows that the UN would, if not for the bad people in Russia and China, authorise military action against Iran. Even so, the Blair version of the will of the UN will not trigger war, but is designed to back up the response to an actual trigger.

What will the trigger be? The false-flag of 911 had to be Saudi-linked for plausibility, but was still used as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Can Blair risk another side-ways association? The Iranians work daily with the British and the Americans (they were, after all, the main partners in the Afghan and Iraq invasion), so a military incident between Iran and the US is FAR harder to arrange than press propaganda would have you believe. Blair's slow-burn psy-ops (like the constant Outrage vs Iran posts) get shot down as soon as they appear, and have produced no momentum amongst normal people. Indeed, as the recent pathetic lies about Iran making people wear badges on their clothes show, the frustration felt by those that control the Mass Media just encourages these racists to engage in every more desperate and self-defeating tactics.

Merkel has promised Blair that any false-flag arranged during the World Cup will immediately be blamed on Iran by her security people. They provided the same service to Reagan over Libya, as you may remember, allowing that senile psycho to butcher hundreds of civians in Tripoli. Blair knows that Merkel is a brain-dead zionist, good for financing another decade of Israeli terrorism against those they raped, tortured, and murdered in order to steal their land. However, Blair knows that Merkel, like all racist thugs, is high risk if given responsibilities beyond the ability of a trained ape.

What is important to Blair is that both France and Germany are chomping at the bit to participate in the initial attack against Iran, and its aftermath. After all, it will be Europe that will provide the army of occupation for much of the Middle East. The US will be mostly out of there soon, engaged in much more important wars working their way toward China.

Israel starts to look like a possibility, but, suprise suprise, no-one with a brain in Israel is stupid enough to want to suicide their so-called nation by attacking Iran. The ethnic group that stole that land wants the muslims of the Earth to suffer the same fate that murdered millions of children in Iraq during the sanctions that false evidence from Israel and the UK kept in place. However, they want muslims pushed down, so that THEY can continue on top, and to those that live in Israel, the loss of Israel is not seen as a price worth paying for this. Of course, many members of the same ethnic group within the US (especially New York), think that Israel should be prepared to risk itself for the good of the 'master-race'.

I really think that Blair himself is still not certain where the dam will break. In that situation, one tries not to worry, and keep the presure building. This way, Blair KNOWS that something will have to give, even if one has the frustration of when adding to where.

It is ironic that in times past, the clear alliance of Germany, France, Canada, Australia, US, and the UK would be all that was needed to smash Iran any which way. However, the 20th century saw the mass selling of the anti-empire, anti-white-power, all-people-are-equal memes. These, of course, are GOOD ideas, but those that promoted them were not doing so for good reasons. Instead, a careful program was in place to build the US into the supreme military and political power on the Earth. Mealy mouthed lip-service was thus made to the US constitution, with all the same hypocrisy as when the same thing happened during the War of Independence, when US citizens were fighting for the right to own non-white Humans as property.

Indeed, watching the racist news and comment that spews forth from the Mass Media (especially ITN) at the same time as these people pretend to push tolerance of a 'multi-racial' Britain is almost hilarious, in the sickest way possible. But then again, it would shock most to learn that the self same contradictory propaganda flooded nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa (a regime which banned Rushdie's controversial book in the name of 'racial harmony'- I kid you not).

In a way, Blair is engaged in carefully untying that very knot of racial tolerance in order to liberate the full force of so-called white-power against the rest of the planet. Again, I point out that Blair is not a racist (he is a million miles away from being that stupid), but he understands the power that may be harnessed when ordinary people are invited to indulge in racial hatred. War forces people to be racist, for only by harbouring such thoughts can people feel able to justify the inhuman acts they carry out against each other.

Please remember that Brain Haw seeks to expose the heart of war as racist mass murder. He insists that people see the images of those that fall victim to Blair's bombs and poisons and bullets, and asks why the criminals responsible suffer no penalties. If rape had no penalty in the UK, how many people would be victims of rape? If Blair could murder with no consequence whomsoever he wished in the UK, how many of us would be dead?

When Blair ensures that anyone working on his behalf in Iraq may carry out any crime, no matter how depraved, because they are immune from prosecution anywhere, what do you think this implies? When Blair has the UN ratify this immunity as their response to his WAR OF AGGRESSION agains Iraq, what do you think this implies about the UN? When Blair passes laws that will send ANYONE to prison for LIFE if they refuse to be part of his armies of GENOCIDE and OCCUPATION what do you think this implies? When Blair targets his one visible opponent at a time when the Mass Media spews a constant stream of pro-Blair pro-war propaganda at us all of the time, what do you think this implies? When Blair is the greatest supporter and ally of the most extreme right wing regime the US has ever seen, what do you think this implies?

What prevents a Third World War? We, the people, getting smarter, better educated, more civilised?- oh, how I'd love to think so, but frankly that's a joke. Such a war would be against the interests of too many of the elite?- hasn't stopped many wars in the past, and certainly didn't stop the last one. Mutually Assured Destruction?- certainly worked for a time, no doubt there. The US would have used nukes dozens of times over, but for fear that they had way too much to lose in any escalating nuclear conflict. Most of the world neatly divided up between two super-powers, or carefully balanced in-between?- well, yes that is usually the story of times that exist between wars, but not a mechanism to end the prospect of new wars.

What prevents a Third World War? NOTHING, nothing at all. And when that is true, the question becomes- what will trigger a Third World War. When that is the question, history will find a trigger, ALWAYS. The trigger will take the form of a person, although we will think in terms of the actions carried out by that person. Long after our human trigger has reduced millions of his fellow humans to dust, historians will say "why did no-one notice the myriad of clues that littered the path to war?". But the the dust would reply, if only it had a voice "how were we to know? Blair had never started a World War before, and it never appeared on his manifesto".


all THAT aside.....

25.05.2006 09:14

nice FILM doug. :)


Deeply unfashionable though it is to say so round here...

25.05.2006 10:03

... I'm an avid reader of Twilight's comments. Whether you or I agree with every word is irrelevant. The more people who offer a reasoned, coherent counterbalance to corporate media piffle, the better.

Jo Public