War Crimes Convictions? But Katie Price Just Had Her Nose Done…

I have written on the subject of the media before, however in light of a very thought-provoking comment from a fellow blogger, I thought I’d write about media bias. It’s something that affects all of us whether we are aware that it does or not; because our perceptions are shaped by the world we experience, and if there’s something that can change the way we look at the universe, then that is powerful, potent even. As the age-old statement goes, “the pen is mightier than the sword”. Or in this case, television, Twitter, Facebook, and radio, might be more powerful than anything else.

Tony Blair (1)

Media control is an issue often associated with totalitarian regimes, and it is rarely perceived as an actual problem in what we refer to as the ‘civilized’ western world. However, the control that exists is subtle, and because it is subtle, there is little cause for rebellion against it, from most of us. It is widely accepted that newspapers tend to have a political bias, however it is not always obvious that the content of newspapers can, and often is, controlled to a certain extent by the proprietors of such things. Rupert Murdoch for instance, is hailed as the media’s big, bad bully; but on the other hand, who can blame the man for wanting to expand control? Power is a base human instinct.

The conviction of George W. Bush and Tony Blair for their role in the Iraq War (example courtesy of this blogger), was not well publicized in the slightest, despite the fact that they were convicted for the most heinous of crimes; a war crimes conviction is not something that is taken lightly in society, however the lack of news coverage in the aftermath of the aforementioned tribunal is astonishing; other elements of leadership, such as the organisations that underpin government, are often obscured through a sort of smoke and mirrors facade. Issues that should be fundamental in securing voters are often hidden, or at least not advertised. Small articles features on the very back pages of newspapers are often used to line kitty litter boxes, and few people really get to the bottom of difficult political issues on a regular basis.

This is also representative of the new celebrity craze that exists; we idolize the rich and famous, often for having made no significant contributions to society. We follow twitter updates constantly, and seem to associate our interests not in the trivial, per se, but in the more human elements of life. We are concerned with how the other half live. We are far less concerned as a society about the workings of government than we were one hundred years ago, however again we live in a culture that is shaped by the significance of media exposure, and so if all we are exposed to is human interest, then it is much more difficult to form a society that is genuinely concerned about finance. As the Nazi regime, and North Korean dictatorships have discovered, anything can be accomplished through propaganda, and there is always a side of the story that can and will be obscured if it is in aid of ‘the greater good’, or a particular political agenda.

I have included the comment of the aforementioned blogger, which was written in response to one of my earlier posts, because I think it provides a very interesting understanding of ‘the other side’.



You mention the connection between education and politics/ political leaders.

Here’s a fascinating video about that very subject.

I’m not sure if the national socialist (AKA Nazi) ideology is dead at all. The main difference between the corporate fascism of the WWII Germany and the corporate fascism we see in the ‘west’ today seems to be that in Germany the state took over the corporations. Today the corporations are taking over the state. (My brain is saying “Like, whatever….”)

Don’t forget that the Nazi’s were funded by elite bankers such as the Rockefellers and even George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush.To understand why they would do this we just need to look above the school history textbook (or mass media/ Hollywood) version of history and realise that the banking and political ‘elite’ sit above nation states and have no particular allegiance to any of them. Not only do they fund and profit financially from war (from human death, let’s be honest), but they use war as a means to affect the geopolitical landscape in order to consolidate their power.

Their motto is ‘Order out of Chaos’. They first create or manipulate the chaos into being (a war, an economic crash, a terrorist act etc) and then while the world is in disarray and the traumatized public are desperate for their leaders to “do something”, it’s much easier for them to steer society towards their desired objectives, towards their new order (towards their ‘new world order’).

The strategy is all around us. David Icke, although much ridiculed for some of his theories, sums it up perfectly in the phrase: Problem – Reaction – Solution.

After the elite funded WWII was over, hundreds of Nazi mind control and rocket scientists were imported to the US, pardoned of their horrific crimes and integrated into the US military industrial complex, including universities. Many of the propulsion scientists (such as Von Braun) ended up working for NASA.

As researchers like bestselling author and journalist Jim Marrs have pointed out, the Nazi’s didn’t really ‘lose’ WW2…. they just had to relocate to somewhere else ie America. In reality, America was hijacked by these globalist elite and their psychopathic frontmen long, long ago. The people who run America today are all CFR members (an organisation well worth researching), including Obama (not that he really runs America – he is just a wall street puppet like most presidents).

It all makes a lot more sense once you realise their agenda for world domination actually requires an end to the ‘superpower’ (ie any nation strong enough to actually stand up to them!). IOW the very people who run America today are intent on destroying it! That is why they are happy to start war after war after war costing trillions …… or sell off all America’s industry to China ….. or destroy the constitution with the Patriot Act and NDAA….all at a time when the economy is so bad even middle class Americans are losing their homes and living in tent cities.

While the Bush family were busy promoting flag waving patriotism in order to send young boys to war (see also: Hitler) they were busy buying up hundred thousand acre ranch in Paraguay sitting on its own aquifer, ready for when America finally collapses and/ or turns into a fully fledged police state / ‘failed state’ under martial law.

Both Bush and Blair were found guilty of war crimes for Iraq under the Geneva Convention in a recent tribunal. And this didn’t even make the mainstream news such is the control the ‘elite’ have over the media these days (just five corporations own nearly all the main media networks in the US…. and the BBC is just as controlled).

Preemptive wars of empire, genocide of innocent civilians, foreign threats and terrorism blown out of all proportion and used to provoke fear and xenophobia, torture, false flag attacks, FEMA concentration camps, the erosion of civil rights, outlawing of basic freedoms and the creation of surveillance society based on fear and perhaps most importantly of all: a complacent, brainwashed public who can’t see it all for what it really is ……. has anything really changed since the days of Nazi Germany?

Have things in fact gotten worse?

Was that OK? … I can rant for longer if you want? ;) (well you’ve got to laugh…)


(1) http://www.topnews.in/files/tony-blair3.jpg



On People

So, I seem to have been running a theme of happiness, or at least optimism, through my last few posts. I like optimism, you see. Anyone who knows me in person will be slightly bemused by this, because outwardly, I’m not always optimistic. Sometimes I’m downright pessimistic. I like to refer to it as realism; I like to know how things work, and I don’t like things that hide how they operate from me. For example, homeopathic medicine unnerves me slightly, because I don’t always understand how it works. The chemical reactions in medicine however, are something I can understand.

I think this is the same for lots of people; the emergence of science began to disprove, or at least make unlikely, the existence of divine powers. We are human, and so we tend to believe what we see and what we can feel. We don’t like power we can’t control, and I think it’s almost an arrogance of species that we think we can control everything our world consists of.

Some people however are remarkably strong in that believe in whatever they want to, even when evidence, or events in their lives challenges the ideas they have. Everyone, at some point believes in something different to someone else. That’s why during Fresher’s Week, at university, politics and philosophy are generally topics of conversation that are avoided. Part of the bonding process is avoiding contention, and finding common ground. In a university setting, the common ground tends to be making arrangements for a night out. We don’t moan about the washing up until much later on, until we know each other better. You don’t know people you live with until such time as they’re grumpy, and you’re grumpy, and you’re all feeling awful. Or when you’ve all got upcoming deadlines. I think people reveal themselves then, because the stress, and the hangovers bring out the worst in people.

Do you like my new sunglasses? (: (1)

I suppose this idea could apply to all environments, in all walks of life. In a work environment, you don’t moan about your job until you know people better, until you know what the atmosphere is like. You don’t take liberties until much later on. It’s probably one of the hardest things to do in the world; establish what the appropriate code in a social situation is. In computer games such as Sims 3, relationships pop up in little measuring bars; in life we go in completely blind, and feel our way through the dark.

Moving through the dark is character building though; you have to offend people sometimes, to know how to apologise. Most people aren’t born with the innate ability to know when they are wrong; sometimes you have to apologise. At some point during adolescence, people have to realise the difference between hiding from someone, or just thrashing it out. Relationships aren’t formulaic, and what offends one person won’t offend another. We just have to bridge the gap between regional differences in humour, and try to know when we’re wrong.

I did warn you all; I’m feeling philosophical, and rather optimistic, too.


(1) http://api.ning.com/files/iIAE1QM9rlcxI0cGQ8WtvWY7Yl4JqtZwyTaXHis9yBQPn8y7AAHuaOFWTa-AG6tAzM3W71dC*C1olX6q8LbJVRapvvLGM1zb/optimism.preview.jpg


On Decadence and Aesthetics

English students are renouned for being fussy, sometimes pretentious students; we are the fussy eaters of the academic world. We tend to know our tastes very early on, purely because my the time we reach undergraduate level, we’ve been forced into reading something from every movement, whether we were aware of it or not. And the impressions that these types of literature make on us as children, tend to remain with us forever.

Personally, I have little patience with Greek and Roman literature, with the exception of Tales From Ovid. Mythology does not tickle my fancy very often, and instead, I’m rather enamoured with modernism, aestheticism, and nineteenth century Russian literature. I occasionally dip into the pond of Victorian certainty, when I fancy something rather more tame; occasionally into a little satire, when I’m feeling sceptical. But when I’m bored, I’ll venture to look at Virginia Woolf, and if I’m feeling particularly adventurous, I’ll look into James Joyce too. When I’m in need of comfort, I’ll read some Wilde, and feel much, much better about almost everything. If I had to choose  a favourite period, I’d be hanging somewhere between aesthetics and modernism. I dare say I’d attempt to look at both of them.

An excellent quotation of Oscar Wilde (1)

The sublime was a concept present in the late Romantic period; an idea that succeeded the concept of the picturesque, but came before aestheticism. The sublime essentially meant something of overwhelming natural beauty, something that was difficult to process intellectually. Wordsworth writes of the sublime in one of his most famous poems, Lines Written A Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey (1798). This revolutionary piece of writing marked a progression in the field of aesthetics, being a truly sublime piece of writing, however is not quite a fully formed aesthetic work, still considering issues of the deity, which can be considered political. Aestheticism fundamentally leans against the inclusion of political and social themes within art.

Arguably however, Samuel Coleridge, a lover of science and geology, but also a lover of literature and poetry, wrote the first widely appreciated work in the field of aesthetics, in his Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Whilst many can argue that the poem condemns a certain number of practices, for example the shooting of the albatross, which can be considered a metaphor for wasting life, he also writes seemingly “on the surface”, and for pleasure. This kind of writing seems connected to Oscar Wilde, and The Picture of Dorian Gray. Two of the biggest Romantic poets formed the basis of aestheticism; Keats, Byron, and Shelley went on to build on this very scarce foundation, left by the two famous writers.

Dante's Lady Lilith; an excellent example of the aesthetic period (2)

To my mind at least, the picturesque, the sublime, and the aesthetic seem to be progressions of one another; in picturesque artwork, a frame is used, to either include or exclude a concept or image, and the painter has final control over the scene; the imagination and the reality of a location or concept amalgamate to create something that is picturesque, but fundamentally, it is not purely realistic. Aestheticism takes this concept further by widening where the ‘picture’ can come from, and what frame can be used, and there is absolutely no requirement for the inclusion of sociopolitical themes.

Aestheticism emerged partly as a reaction to the Enlightenment as a later extension of Romanticism; instead of looking at science, and factual things, the idea of art being created because it is beautiful emerged. Oscar Wilde is probably the most prominent of the aesthetic writers, alongside people such as Dante Gabriel Rossetti. The concept of ‘art for art’s sake’ overrode any social concerns, or political agendas. This was really a period of decadence and beauty.

I’m something of a fan of decadence and beauty in literature; I love things that will fascinate my mind, blow it backwards, and take me to something of a utopia whereby there are no deep social issues. Sometimes, it is nice to be immersed in such a beautiful world, and to escape darker, more imposing literature such as Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, or Devils. Literature provides a point of escape for so many people; the decadent writers lived in a world that preceded world wars, common invasion, and a plethora of other genocides; a practice that ran rampant throughout the 20th century. In many ways, their world was something far more innocent; the British Empire covered a quarter of the globe, and nothing ever truly threatened the innately British superiority complex. In many ways, it was a world so supremely different from ours that it could be considered a whole other culture, an almost untainted one.

I wonder what everyone else finds fascinating…


(1) http://files.myopera.com/tatora/blog/4878_PRO_sample_01.gif

(2) http://gypsyscarlett.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/art-dante-gabriel-rossetti-lady-lilith-18681.jpg