BAP (british american project)

"In the summer of 1997, a few weeks after New Labour won power, a striking article about the election appeared in a privately circulated newsletter. Under the cryptic headline Big Swing To BAP, the article began, "No less than four British-American Project fellows and one advisory board member have been appointed to ministerial posts in the new Labour government." A list of the names of these five people and of other New Labour appointees who were members of BAP followed: "Mo Mowlam ... Chris Smith ... Peter Mandelson ... Baroness Symons ... George Robertson ... Jonathan Powell ... Geoff Mulgan ... Matthew Taylor ..." The article ended with a self-congratulatory flourish and the names of two more notable BAP members: "James Naughtie and Jeremy Paxman gave them all a hard time on BBC radio and television. Other fellows, too numerous to list, popped up throughout the national media commenting, criticising and celebrating."

The British-American Project for the Successor Generation, to give it its full title, was founded in 1985 "to perpetuate the close relationship between the United States and Britain" in the words of BAP's slim official history, through "transatlantic friendships and professional contacts". It has a membership of "600 leaders and opinion formers", drawn equally from both countries. It holds an annual conference (the next starts this Friday in Chicago) to which journalists are not invited and at which everything said is, officially at least, not to be repeated to outsiders. It rarely features in the mainstream media - instead, it makes tantalisingly vague and fleeting appearances in those corners of the internet where conspiracy aficionados gather.
Here, BAP is portrayed as a Trojan horse for American foreign policy, recruiting Britons of liberal or left-of-centre inclinations and political talent and connections when they are young, indoctrinating them with propaganda about the virtues of American capitalism and America's role in the world, and then watching them approvingly as they steer British politics in an ever more pro-Washington direction. According to this analysis, the project's greatest success has been New Labour.

Besides the names mentioned in BAP's 1997 newsletter, the organisation numbers among its members Douglas Alexander, the precocious Foreign Office and trade minister; Baroness Scotland, the politically favoured criminal justice minister; Julia Hobsbawm, the prominent public relations executive and New Labour associate; and Adair Turner, one of the government's most senior business allies and author of the recent official report on the future of pensions.

In the years immediately before the founding of BAP, the early 1980s heyday of Tony Benn and CND, the Labour party was sceptical about America. Now it will seemingly swallow almost anything the US does, and the idea that BAP made the difference has some authoritative backers. The leftwing journalist John Pilger, who has been uncovering American manipulation of other countries' politics for decades, has described BAP as a "casual freemasonry" and "by far the most influential transatlantic network of politicians, journalists and academics". The historian Frances Stonor Saunders, who has written extensively about the American use of earlier, similar networks to influence western opinion during the cold war, sees close parallels with BAP: "All that's changed is that BAP are much more sophisticated."

In December 2001, in response to a parliamentary question from the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, Tony Blair said that the organisation "arranges meetings, including with ministers, for young leaders from the business, economic, professional, cultural, artistic, governmental, academic, scientific, medical, military and social life of the two countries". Beyond New Labour, the BAP membership includes the Conservative election strategist Steve Hilton, the shadow work and pensions minister and Tory intellectual David Willetts, the former Conservative minister Stephen Dorrell, the founder of the UK Independence Party Alan Sked, and Charles Moore, the former editor of the Daily Telegraph.

Until now, BAP's public response to allegations of political influence has been to ignore or dismiss them. A postscript to its official history calls the idea of the project as a vehicle for the American government a "myth" and "a curious reinvention of BAP history". But what, then, does BAP do exactly? Since 1985, it has received sponsorship from, among other companies, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Monsanto, Saatchi & Saatchi, Philip Morris, Coopers & Lybrand, American Express, Apple, British Airways, BP, Cadbury Schweppes and Camelot. Busy politicians and other public figures have crossed the Atlantic, some of them repeatedly, to attend BAP conferences, which can last for five days. One member describes proceedings as "a quasi-religious experience for some people", but what else has kept the whole enterprise going for almost 20 years? What has BAP achieved?

The author of both the project's official history and the article in its newsletter about New Labour is a British journalist called Martin Vander Weyer. He has been a BAP member since 1994, and until last year was chairman of its British operation.

Meeting him, at first, is something of a disappointment. He is disarmingly jolly: amused eyes, a raspy, confiding voice, swept-back grey hair rebelling behind his ears. He is wearing an ostentatiously traditional but slightly unkempt suit of the kind favoured by middle-aged Tory journalists, and has just come back from a lunch at the Spectator, where he is an associate editor. He suggests a cafe, and strides off, talking freely, through the London rush hour. He does not look much like a New Labour conspirator.

Vander Weyer depicts BAP in altogether more relaxed terms. "It's both a fantastic social opportunity and an amazing professional networking opportunity." At the conferences, he says, "Everyone is on equal terms, and you take the handbrake off ..." He grins. "There's quite big late-night drinking. Requires a lot of stamina. Every year you can see the astonishment of the church-going Americans. You see them jogging around the hotel whenever you open your curtains in the morning."

To see anything sinister in all this, he continues cheerily, is "bonkers conspiracy stuff". But what about his newsletter article? Vander Weyer clasps his forehead in mock-regret. "I wrote the headline. I thought it was quite snappy. It was a great mistake. Probably my greatest mistake."

But then he begins to choose his words more carefully. "The British membership is quite a concentrated elite," he admits. "There was a stage where ... a lot of the people who emerged as part of the New Labour leadership group happened - and I say happened, because it is partly chance - to be members of BAP ... The American side is more spread out: Americans who just enjoy contact with Brits. We have Republicans, Democrats, people who work on Capitol Hill."

He explains how BAP members are selected. Each existing member can nominate up to three people aged between 28 and 40. These nominees are then interviewed and tested: there are competitive debates, "management games" and personal presentations. "We sift the nominees according to their willingness to listen to other people," says Vander Weyer. "Whether we think they'd fit with the group."

Do they ever pick people who are anti-American? "Oh yes. There are lots and lots of members who are anti-American." He mentions the journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Then he grins again. "I've never found myself in such a leftwing group as this." If BAP has a political diversity problem, he says, it is rather different from the one its critics allege: "Some of the drier Conservatives who've come to conferences over the years have found ... too much of a bleeding heart."

The circular nature of the nomination process narrows the BAP membership in other ways. A member recalls, "I was nominated by the man who subsequently became my husband, who was nominated by a friend of his, who was nominated by someone he knew." Vander Weyer says BAP is trying to compensate for this. "We try to find people outside our network." He cites "a cinema manager and a fire officer from Newcastle" who have become members. He gives a rare serious look. "We want to counter any sense that this is a self-perpetuating elite."

The only problem is, BAP was founded to be exactly that. At the start of the 1980s, the idea of a "successor generation" began to stir on the dusty pages of British and American foreign policy journals. Kenneth P Adler, an academic employed by the US government to watch western European political trends, defined it as "the segment of the general public that is most likely to succeed to positions of power and influence in the near future". This group, he and other observers predicted, would either follow the broadly pro-American path of "the founder generation" of postwar western European political leaders, or take a more independent, even hostile stance. With Ronald Reagan in the White House and the cold war he was helping to orchestrate in one of its least appealing, most attritional phases, it was by no means certain "the successor generation" would stay loyal to Washington. "Ideologically, if a consensus exists across Europe," wrote Adler, "it would be somewhere on the left ... a middle way between Sweden and Yugoslavia ... distancing [itself] from 'the superpowers'."

The US government was particularly worried about Britain. Despite all the official talk of a "special relationship" between the two countries since the second world war, there had been surprisingly regular periods of British public disenchantment with Washington: over Suez and Vietnam and, particularly, over the deployment in Britain of US nuclear weapons. In November 1981, three weeks after CND had held its biggest ever protest in London, Reagan made a speech in Washington warning that "some young people do not understand ... why we need nuclear weapons [or] Nato's roots in defending freedom." With Margaret Thatcher a deeply unpopular prime minister, and the Labour opposition influenced by an anti-Washington party membership, a new British official attitude to America looked quite likely. "It is possible to argue that had a Labour government been formed," the historian Peter Jones wrote of the early 1980s in his book America And The British Labour Party, "it would almost certainly have led to the complete collapse of the 'special relationship'."

A 27-year-old British economist called Nick Butler decided to intervene. For someone of his age and profession, he already had unusually useful and diverse connections: he worked for BP, but he was also treasurer of the influential left-leaning pressure group the Fabian Society and a promising junior player in the Labour party. He also loved America. "The UK was in a bad state," he says. "America seemed much more dynamic, full of ideas, open." For years, he had been reading Tom Wolfe and Joan Didion, and books about US politics. He was always wanting to visit America, more than his work permitted. At the same time, he felt the Labour party needed fresh ideas from abroad. "My perspective then was that my generation - I would have been described as 'rightwing' in the 1982 Labour party - were totally stifled here. No prospect of being in power."

That spring, Butler wrote a memo proposing "some form of regular contact for Britons and Americans", to reduce "hostility to all things American" and promote "mutual understanding over a wide range of policies ... how cities are regenerated, how market forces worked, and so on." For the membership of what was to become BAP, he had a specific transatlantic group in mind: "Bright people, in many different fields, who were likely to influence outcomes in those fields. People who were interesting. Interested in change. In doing things. In progress."

Butler says this with a straight face and takes a sip of wine. Sitting in the half-darkness of his London club, wearing an immaculate suit and barely opening his mouth as he talks, he explains the philosophy and workings of BAP with less of Vander Weyer's cheery evasiveness. "I don't think networks are inevitable," Butler says with emphasis. "They are absolutely desirable. I think networks are a great phenomenon. The Fabians are a network, BP's another network - that is civil society."

Since the 1980s, Butler has maintained and extended his political and commercial connections like a model member of the "successor generation". He is close to Mandelson and other senior New Labour figures. Thanks in part to Butler, BP - where he is now group vice-president, strategy and policy development - has become known as "Blair Petroleum" for the warmth of its relations with Downing Street.

Butler's gifts for alliance-building and persuasion turned BAP from a paper proposal into an international organisation in less than three years. Between 1982 and its first conference in 1985, he recruited a shrewdly broad range of supporters, co-founders and financial backers: Sir Charles Villiers, a liberal Tory businessman with a long personal attachment to America; the US embassy in London, which gave Butler a grant to go to Washington to test reactions to the BAP idea; and the Pew Charitable Trusts, a very large and wealthy American foundation.

These days, Pew supports diverse causes, from public health to the environment. But the foundation's origins are more controversial. The Pew family made their money in oil, and for much of the 20th century the dominant personality in their business and philanthropic activities was J Howard Pew, a man of particular political convictions. "To me free enterprise is a very noble thing," an official Pew history from 1984 quotes him saying. During the 1950s, he established the J Howard Pew Freedom Trust to, in the words of its charter, "acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy ... the false promises of socialism ... the paralysing effects of government controls". Since his death in 1971, the official history continues, the Freedom Trust "has supported those projects and groups that reflect the founder's philosophy". BAP, it appears, was one of them: according its own official history, it received "grants totalling $460,000, which funded the first three BAP conferences".

Butler says that the Pew organisation "never interfered. Never told us what to do. I never met them." He sounds convincing. Yet, if you read the reports from these and subsequent BAP conferences, written by and circulated to BAP members, and talk to some of those who attended, a process of political education can be discerned of which J Howard Pew would have approved.

Every autumn, BAP hires a hotel, or a large part of one, for a long weekend, alternating between British and American venues. Conference rooms are reserved, boardroom-style tables arranged, themes chosen for discussion. A purposeful timetable of seminars and larger gatherings, dinners and group excursions is drawn up. Lighter interludes are scheduled for drinking and bonding and organised fun - Vander Weyer has been known to host a closing-night revue as a rightwing caricature called Professor Whiplash - but the overall atmosphere remains somewhere between an international summit and a corporate retreat for young executives. Even at the more intimate seminars, there are papers and water jugs on the tables, and some of the men like to keep their ties on.

"I've been on weekends organised by other networks - Anglo-French, Anglo-Spanish, Anglo-German - but I've never been on such a grand one," says Alibhai-Brown. "The amount of drink, the way you were treated, the dinners with everyone who was anyone ... Jonathan Powell [Tony Blair's chief of staff] used to come a lot. I remember having many an argument with him beside swimming pools in white towelling dressing gowns ... It was money that I'd never seen at any conference before. We [the participants] used to joke, 'This is obviously funded by the CIA.'"

Any such connection to Washington is denied by BAP, but a more subtle subordination to America was there from the beginning. There was the fact that BAP started as a British initiative, not an American one. And there was the way the American members set the tone of the conferences. "I vividly remember the first: we were all stunned by how much more money they all had," says Butler. "They'd run their own businesses. They ran charities. They were in a different league in terms of what they'd achieved. I remember Jeremy Paxman saying that to me, and Mo Mowlam. We were all struck by that."

This sense of American superiority framed and coloured the discussions. As people leaned forward on the conference tables and made bright-eyed presentations and asked each other penetrating questions, European notions such as socialism, the welfare state and high levels of government spending were judged, in the slightly sweeping way of clever young thinkers, to be in difficulties. American notions such as less regulated capitalism, a smaller "enabling state" and a world kept safe by the Pentagon came to be regarded as sensible, inevitable. "Five years before I joined BAP, I thought wealth creation and progressive politics were completely incompatible," says Trevor Phillips, now chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. "BAP was one of the things that made me think that was absurd."

For the American participants, the political epiphanies were less dramatic. "Americans who might have thought that the Labour party was off the radar screen had their minds opened," says George R Packard, a prominent American international relations academic and BAP supporter from the beginning. Another American member says simply, "You learn a lot about how many perspectives there can be." In Phillips's experience, the traffic in specific ideas was mostly one-way: "I didn't detect that the Americans had learned a great amount [from us] about what they could and should do in the US."

Besides the advantages of the American way, the other big political preoccupation of BAP conferences during the 1980s and early 1990s was the condition and prospects of the Labour party. The Conservatives may have been in government, but the conference reports mention them surprisingly rarely. Instead, there are involved discussions about the Labour attitude to nuclear weapons, about the strengths and weaknesses of the party's general election campaigning, about whether, as BAP members saw it in 1987, Labour "had more interest in remaining a party, with policies and an ideology, than in achieving power".

It is too conspiratorial to see in these debates the creation, in secret, of New Labour. The remade party was the product of countless gatherings and discussions, and too many of its architects - Blair and Gordon Brown, to name two - were not BAP members. But, in retrospect at least, there was a whiff of something new in the analyses of Labour's problems presented at BAP conferences. "Most of us held broadly New Labour views - before Tony, you could say," says Lord Lipsey, the journalist, Labour peer and BAP member. "BAP was one of a number of streams that came together in New Labour."

Of course, not everyone in BAP is a politician, just as not every conference seminar is about politics. "For any 10 politicians who happen to be members," says Vander Weyer, "you could name 10 artists, writers ..." He pauses, and then a gleam comes into his eye: "Benjamin Zephaniah [the radical black British poet] is a member. Although not a regular attender."

Another element of the BAP membership is less surprising. "Many BAP alumni are directly involved with US and UK military and defence establishments," noted the 2002 conference report. An account followed of a conference excursion to the Pentagon: "Our BAP group was welcomed as 'old friends'." Butler is equally frank about the link. "The military are quite important, quite influential. We had a great guy who was a Polaris submarine commander. And he was a leftwinger ... loosely leftwing. [Colonel] Bob Stewart, of Bosnia fame - a lovely guy - gave a great break-out talk. These weren't people pumping out a military line. These people were talking about their direct experience."

The encounters and contacts that BAP makes possible are often cited enthusiastically by members. An American mentions meeting an astronaut at a conference. "We kept in touch ... then he told me he was giving a lecture at West Point [the US military academy]. I took the train up and we had dinner. It was a blast! Completely out of my normal world."

Packard says that at the conferences he is "astounded at how quickly the bonding takes place". In BAP's official literature, the former Labour minister Chris Smith describes attending one as "four intoxicating days of thought and discussion".Critics of BAP say that is precisely the point. "Propaganda that really works," says Saunders, "is when you get people to move in directions you want them to for reasons they think are their own."

Yet not everyone joins BAP with their guard down. "I did make some inquiries privately before joining," says the British writer and foreign policy analyst Anatol Lieven. He cites the infamous British liberal journal secretly funded by the CIA during the cold war: "After the whole Encounter experience, one does have to be a little careful." But Lieven's inquiries about BAP left him reassured: "It is genuinely pluralist. The discussions are very frank. In 2002, they asked me to give a talk on Bush's strategy in which I was very, very tough."


Other critics of Washington join BAP in order, they say, to know their enemy. Alibhai-Brown found her first conference in 1988 "a miserable experience ... but really useful. There were hardly any women, and unspeakable people - so rightwing - on both the British and American sides. But I wanted to know about this very powerful axis, to learn to talk to them without poking them in the eye." She was still attending BAP conferences 15 years later.

A certain number of internal dissidents are good for the project's image: they make BAP, and the Anglo-American relationship, seem open to criticism but too important to ignore. And they keep the conferences interesting. But, reassuringly, not every rebel is successfully co-opted. Zephaniah recalls his one and only conference: "It was in this hotel in California, in Oakland, the Claremont. I remember them [the BAP members] all as men in suits or power-dressed women. Oil people, a couple of people from minority groups. I remember loads of trust games. The men were told, 'Now take off your tie, and relax, and do some yoga exercises, and go off into a group, and talk about empowerment.'"

Zephaniah started skipping the discussion groups by telling each one that he was going to the other. But after a while he had had enough. One evening, "I escaped. I got out of the hotel. I went down to Berkeley [the neighbouring city], hung out with some homeless people, went to see a friend of mine." How did BAP treat him after that? "Every year, they kept sending me the report of the last conference. I had a whole shelf of them. Last year, I put them in the bin."

Sitting in his London club, in his immaculate suit, Butler smiles. We have been talking for perhaps 20 minutes, and we are already on to the second glass of wine. The founder of BAP, like many of its members, is good at being convivial. "BAP is not a terribly serious venture," he says. "It's an interesting venture." He says he feels "quite proud" of what it has achieved. "A lot of people have learned a lot from American experience in a lot of fields."

He says he hopes that the British members of BAP can exert a moderating influence on America in return. Perhaps. The more liberal American members of BAP also hope so. But, as with the special relationship itself, the power and uniqueness of BAP can be overstated. There are other Anglo-American networks for the young and ambitious: Rhodes scholars, Fulbright scholars, Kennedy scholars. And there are other American networks. Packard mentions one in passing: "In 2000, I started an exact clone of BAP: the US-Japan leadership project."

Behind the confidence of the BAP conferences, according to Vander Weyer, lies a skeletal organisation: no British office, a "cubicle office" in the US, a tiny staff working from home. "From time to time we receive a small amount of money from the foreign and commonwealth office, the US embassy," he says. After getting their first conference for free, members pay up to £500 each to attend.
And every year, BAP needs new members. As he gets up to go at the end of our interview, Vander Weyer gestures expansively across the cafe table. "Depending on how this goes," he says, "I'd be very happy to nominate you."

UK members of the British-American Project include:
Peter Mandelson EU trade commissioner
Jonathan Powell Tony Blair's chief of staff
Jeremy Paxman broadcast journalist and author
Mo Mowlam former Labour Northern Ireland secretary
Adair Turner head of pensions commission
Trevor Phillips chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality
James Naughtie broadcast journalist and author
Matthew Taylor Downing Street head of policy
Chris Smith former Labour culture secretary
Baroness Symons Foreign Office minister
Lord Robertson former Nato secretary-general
Douglas Alexander Foreign Office and trade minister
Geoff Mulgan former head of Downing Street's policy and strategy unit
Baroness Scotland Home Office minister
Julia Hobsbawm public relations consultant
Steve Hilton Conservative special adviser
Benjamin Zephaniah poet and activist
Colonel Bob Stewart former commander of British forces in Bosnia
David Willetts Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary
Alan Sked founder of Ukip
Stephen Dorrell former Conservative health secretary
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown columnist and broadcaster
Charles Moore former editor of the Daily Telegraph
Nick Butler BP group vice-president, strategy and policy development
Lord Lipsey Labour peer and author


--------------------------------------
SCUMBAGS INC.

Project Directors

Sue McLeod
UK Project Director
British-American Project
114 Salisbury Road
Ealing
London
W13 9TT

Tel: 020 8579 4017
E-mail: mcleod.bap@btopenworld.com

Arleziana Lapter
US Project Administrator

E-mail: usabap@gmail.com

----------------------------

Nothing more than elitest interests to undermine and oppress the lower class. This organised crime must be stopped and is nothing more than another bilderberg. 

commonwealth games in india put homeless in jail

"People living in Delhi’s shanty towns are being swept off the city's streets as it prepares to host the Commonwealth Games. As India's capital gears up for the October games, orders have gone out to clear the streets of beggars. Mobile anti-begging squads were formed last September to sweep the poor off the streets. Every morning teams of police, backed by mobile courtrooms, roam the city targeting the wealthy areas of South Delhi and tourist precincts.

In the past three months, the units have arrested 224 people and sentenced 124 to at least a year in one of the 12 beggar homes across the state. About 1514 beggars were committed to Delhi beggar homes last year, where the government claims to provide training in courses such as carpentry, tailoring and weaving. A free round the clock Beggar Hotline is set to be launched in April to allow people to report offenders to a Beggar Control Room.

There are an estimated 60,000 beggars on Delhi's streets according to figures in the Guardian newspaper. Many estimates put the figure much higher – and tens of thousands more people live rough on roadside scraps of land. The idea behind the push is that begging doesn’t do much for the "Incredible India" image the authorities want to promote. "Before the 2010 Commonwealth Games, we want to finish the problem of beggary from Delhi," the city's social welfare minister, Mangat Ram Singhal, announced at the launch of the initiative. One social welfare officer said: "The main motive is to create terror in them so that they will stop begging."

Thousands of shanty towns have also been flattened as part of the city’s pre games facelift, leaving countless more homeless. The Games village has been built on the site of a demolished shanty town. The beggar crackdown has been heavily criticised by aid organisations. Sushil Kumar Singh, a legal aid lawyer told The Australian newspaper the mobile units – which work alongside the city's Beggar Court – often wrongly arrest travelling day workers who depend on free meals from temples or mosques. "They're not beggars, they're labourers, but they're all poor and at some point or another may need free food," Mr Singh says. "Some people say begging is a lucrative business but if that were the case, we would all be doing it."

Ratnabai Kale was picked up at the start of the drive in September, along with her daughter Aarti, 16, and her sister Shobha, 30. "They said, 'You're not going on that bus. Get on to this one.' I asked why; they said because we were beggars. I said, 'First of all, we're not beggars, we're honest labourers', But the police didn't listen,” she said. “They told us we'd be given a four-year sentence in jail if we didn't go along."



-------------------

Another stark reminder about how the olympic committee exploits the poor and needy in their rich corrupt
event.  Business > human life

Geert "im a nazi bastard" Wilders comes to uk for a kicking

"Controversial Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders arrived in Britain today after overturning a ban on him entering the UK.

Mr Wilders attempted to enter the country last February but was detained on landing at Heathrow airport and ordered to fly back to the Netherlands just over three hours later.

He had been due to show his anti-Islamic film Fitna, which criticises the Koran as a "fascist book", at the House of Lords but then-home secretary Jacqui Smith said his presence had the potential to "threaten community harmony and therefore public safety" and the ban was imposed.

But the 46-year-old Freedom Party leader had the ban quashed and sparked demonstrations from Muslim protesters when he came to Parliament last October.

Today he was showing the film to MPs and peers as a guest of UK Independence Party leader Lord Pearson and crossbencher Baroness Cox. Lord Pearson has condemned radical Islam as a "world domination movement".

There was no sign of any protests when Mr Wilders arrived at London's Heathrow airport this morning but demonstrators were expected at Westminster later.

Explaining his controversial views last October, Mr Wilders said: "I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies, the less freedom that we get."

In a pre-election interview last month, Lord Pearson described the Dutch politician as a "friend" and denied accusations that his own party was "far-right" or "radical", after it called for face coverings - such as the veil worn by some Muslim women - to be banned.

"Is it radical to wish to protect British society and our Judeo-Christian culture from the growing influence of radical Islam?" he asked.

Lord Pearson insisted his party was "absolutely non-racist" and made clear he was not referring to moderate Muslims.

But he claimed the political establishment was "asleep" to the expansionist aims of radical Islam.

Mr Wilders has been under 24-hour protection for the past five years after receiving death threats over his views."

-------------

Are we trying to create at nazi free state? Maybe now we will let nazi asylum seekers join........What the fuck is our government playing at in a blatant promotion of fascist ideals by letting this piece of shit entry. Its clear our government wont stop fascists. WE WILL.

ALERTA!

FREEDOM PART 2 (UPDATE)

I recently watched washington your fired dvd and must say it does a very good job of exposing the corrupt american bilderberg government. It shows us that 1984 is almost here. Its a stark reminder that anyone who dare oppose the american government in ANY way goes to jail and gets beaten up by cops.  Here is some info and a link.

"WASHINGTON, YOU'RE FIRED! was born out of sheer frustration with abuses in our current political system and it gives a voice to Americans across the country. Producers Lewis and Abel trailed their way across the United States on an expedition to pull together the thoughts and requirements that everyday Americans have for their political representatives in Washington, D.C. The results were staggering and their stories are moving.

The American people know in their hearts that a problem exists in our current political structure and their solutions are simple, direct, and honest. Washington, You're Fired captures the spirit and zest of an old fashioned Boston tea party and captivatingly delivers the audience an education into legislation that will affect them and generations of Americans to come.

What if every email, every phone call; every time you surfed the Internet, your private communications were being siphoned into a gigantic dragnet funded by a forty-five billion dollar budget and carried out in cooperation with the FBI, AT&T, and Verizon? Washington, You're Fired presents compelling first-hand testimony and whistleblower accounts, punching holes in the official "war on terrorism" excuse that has been used to dismantle the U.S. Bill of Rights and tip the scales of executive checks and balance in this country.

From the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts and law enforcement abuses to the wrongful imprisonment and torturing of legal enemy combatants and misuse of the FBI and NSA -- nothing is taboo in this disturbing look at the dark side of government."


http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=54591618

you can also try this excellent video from the same people that highlights major coverup by
the american government on 911


http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2361717427531377078&ei=zSyRS5GfItTF-Aa91qzTAg&q=911+plane&hl=en#

On the uk 911 issue here is another excellent video about the london bombing and how it was all covered up
by the uk government.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776&ei=Wi2RS_eUOIyC-AbLzs3fAg&q=ripple+effect+7+7&hl=en#

Turkey condemns US 'genocide' vote

Turkey has recalled its ambassador from the US and condemned a Washington panel's move to declare the killing of Armenians by Ottoman forces in the first world war a "genocide". "We condemn this resolution which accuses the Turkish nation of a crime it has not committed," Ankara said in a statement on Thursday. "Following this development, our ambassador to Washington, Namik Tan, was recalled to Ankara for consultations." The announcement came minutes after the US House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee passed a non-binding measure in a 23-22 vote on Thursday, calling on the Obama administration to ensure US policy formally refers to the 1915 mass killings of Armenians as genocide.The vote, which enables the resolution to be sent to the full House for approval, came despite pressure from the White House and Turkey, a long-time Nato ally. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, told the chairman of the committee, Howard Berman, on Wednesday that "further congressional action could impede progress on normalisation of relations" between Turkey and Armenia, according to a spokesman.But Berman, in his opening remarks at the committee's hearing on Thursday, while calling Turkey a "vital and, in most respects, a loyal ally of the United States in a volatile region", said "nothing justifies Turkey's turning a blind eye to the reality of the Armenian genocide". 'Untimely' vote Suat Kinik-lioglu, a member of parliament from Turkey's ruling Justice and Development party, told Al Jazeera that the vote was "very untimely". He said it was not for foreign legislators to judge on the "very complicated history of World War I", especially "when this country is a strong ally, works closely with the United States and there is an ongoing reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia". "Turkey works very closely with the US on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, global terrorism, Middle East peace process, Syria-Israel talks," he pointed out.Saying he did not see the recalling of Turkey's ambassador to the US as merely a symbolic gesture in a drama that would soon blow over, he said:"This is being watched very carefully, there is high sensitivity towards this. Turks feel badly treated by only seeing one version of the events of 1915. "I think the Americans would feel that same if we were to pass a resolution in our parliament talking about the treatment of [native] Indians in this country."Ankara said the outcome of the US panel's vote demonstrated "a lack of strategic vision" among US legislators at a time when Turkey and the US "are working together on a broad common agenda"."We are seriously concerned that this bill... will harm Turkish-US relations and impede efforts aimed at normalising Turkish-Armenian ties," it added. Abdullah Gul, Turkey's president, said the resolution had "no value in the eyes of the Turkish people" and warned that it would deal a blow on fledgling efforts to end decades of hostility between Turkey and Armenia. "Turkey will not be responsible for the negative ramifications that this vote may have in every field," he said. White House spokesman Mike Hammer said Barack Obama, the US president, had spoken to Gul on the phone on Wednesday to express his appreciation for Turkey's efforts to normalise ties with Armenia. Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper said Gul had urged his US counterpart to use his influence to block the resolution. Obama had pledged to call the Armenian killings genocide during his election campaign in 2008. The US president has said that while he has not changed his personal views, he does not want to upset promising talks between Turkey and Armenia on improving relations and opening their border which Turkey sealed in 1993 to protest against Armenia's war with neighbouring Azerbaijan. Complicating ties Al Jazeera's senior Washington correspondent, Rob Reynolds, said Thursday's vote could complicate relations between the US and Turkey because Ankara is an important ally."First of all, it's a highway through which the US supplies its troops in Iraq.
"For another, it's been involved often as a broker for Middle East peace agreements and of course it's a Nato ally and it has troops in the US-led Nato coalition in Afghanistan." Huseyin Bagci, a political analyst in Ankara, told Al Jazeera that the US decision would have implications on Turkey's domestic and foreign policies. "President Obama, if he's going to speak the word genocide on April 24, then probably Turkish-American relations will go into a very difficult phase," he said, referring to the date recognised by many Armenians across the world as Genocide Awareness Day. "After this, the anti-American feelings in Turkey will increase, the Turkish nationalism will also get strengthened and the government is going to face certain reactions inside domestic politics." Ankara also recalled its envoy from Washington in 2007 when the same committee passed a similar genocide measure. But George Bush, the then US president, stopped the resolution from going to the full House, wary that Ankara would block US access to a Turkish air base essential to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Armenian groups in the US have for decades sought congressional affirmation of the 1915 killings as genocide. Historians estimate that up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed under the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor of modern Turkey, around the time of the first world war. Turkey denies that the deaths constituted genocide, saying 300,000-500,000 Armenians and at least as many Turks died in what was a civil war when Armenians rose up for independence and sided with invading Russian troops. After decades of hostility, Turkey and Armenia signed a deal in October to establish diplomatic relations and open their border.But the process has hit the rocks, with Ankara accusing Yerevan of trying to tweak the terms of the deal and Armenia charging that Turkey is not committed to ratifying the accord.

----------------------------------------


was not suprising to hear hilary "bilderberger" clinton say we are dissapointed. Her anti humanity ideals
are all too evident. Its very clear that she promotes profit over humanity. Im glad this vote passed because corporate america didnt want it to pass. A sign that maybe humanity can get through this dark age.

Hillary Clinton begins Latin American tour

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8543122.stm

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is starting a five-day tour of Latin America, with her first visit to countries like Chile and Brazil.

She will also attend the inauguration of the Uruguayan President and former guerilla fighter Jose Mujica.
The US secretary of state was expecting to spend a day in Chile on Tuesday.
State Department officials said she would still be stopping in Santiago, but the agenda of her visit may change in the wake of the earthquake there.
Hillary Clinton may be going to Latin America, but she will be partly focused on Iran.
Question time
Washington is pushing for a fourth round of UN sanctions against Tehran.
Brazil, a rising regional player with civilian nuclear power, currently sits on the UN Security Council and it has been reluctant to get tough with Iran.
The talks in Brasilia will be a test for Mrs Clinton as she seeks to revamp Washington's credibility south of its border.
After promising to turn a new page with its southern neighbours, the Obama administration has brought little change to US policies in Latin America and has paid little attention to the region.
Washington's policy of isolating Cuba is still the main sticking point, and Mrs Clinton is likely to face tough questions throughout her trip"

-----------------

what is doesnt tell you that they want to exploit the poor even more. They are making this visit so to promote their plans for the new currency the ameuro aswell as improving capitalistic ideals on trade.

OUR FREEDOMS ARE BEING ERODED

I urge all people to stand for freedom of factual information and condem oppresion of information that is currently being oppresed by various internet sournces. Facebook has cia connections being one. My friend frequently posts alerting people about global weather change and its true sources (unlike mainstream media). There are various youtube attempts also in practice with the hijacking of accounts. Several accounts posting factual evidence about nibiru have been attacked.

There currently is a campaign to root out freedom and truth seekers, homeland security hired cybersecurity
pros to fight against the internet. The us also declared parts of the media to be the enemy. This is a very alarming statement for the states to make because of their history of human rights violations record.

Two communities i have come across  believe corruption of this kind are acceptable and they do not realise the dangers of this world diving into a new 1984 scenario.

On one instance http://2012forum.com/ is a very oppressive community. Anyone who displays an anti american government view point that doesnt conform with the norm is ganged up on, bullied and singled out.
Several of their mods and owner applaud this behaviour. I have met quite a few members who think the same.
Here is my final email to their fascistic ideals

"Hi ThirdEye,

Here's a summary of how things look to me.

- your opinions rile others
- a variety of different members are not getting on with you - this is less of a case of personal attacks, and more of a case of you just not fitting in
- moderators have been telling me that you complain too much. While many are valid, plenty are petty as well

All could have been sorted one way or another, but at great expense of time for myself and moderators (several times a year we find all of our time is being taken up by one individual....).

But then you complained about a moderator in the public forum. This isn't acceptable from anyone, for any reason. It undermines authority, and without authority any forum descends into spam and chaos.

You can return in 7 days or so (i'm not sure how precise the temp ban facility in the forum software is, but it will be 7 days give or take a day...) . If you wish to keep contributing, try and keep your anti-US comments on topic, and not just related to the topic in a roundabout way. And remember, all complaints go via moderators, or directly to me.

Rob

---------

So in other words you want your board to surpress opinion. This makes your forum a non debate with no chance of new views/facts
It seems clear to me that my non comformist FACTS dont go down well, Tell me how can i be banned for factual information.
I debate in the correct fashion that resulted in personnel attacks and bullying. Suz cannot moderate as she accepts attacks
that have nothing to do with the debate. I would never moderate in that fashion (by the way i own/moderate over 2000. I know what i am talking about.

Just because i see the facts that governments (especially the us and uk) are corrupt. Fitting in lol. I guess your attempts to run a forum have gone well short of the real deal. Forum = opinion from all sides. You cannot ban someone for expressing an opinion and reporting facts. Your actions are very ignorant and tell me that your seeking to get onside with the main stream view.

I rile others? My opinions and for that matter anyone else's opinions wont always meet agreeable terms. You fail to realize this also.
Thats the whole purpose of debate. To think otherwise is ignorant. I complain for the reason that ogimos overmoderates and provides a new level of censorship which undermines freedom of thought. Your other mods? Would that be the one who totally agreed with me
on a pm? Your overbiased opinion does not speak for all. FIGURES.

Undermine authority? Even when they dont know HOW TO MODERATE. You are unbelievable. Obviously forum rules dont count for nothing. Your rules = LIES when it comes to the crunch.

Lets get one thing straight, i wont be bullied into not posting facts. I wont be told or oppressed by government puppets who troll your board and moderators who over moderate and censor FACTS. you cant handle the truth and it shows with your regime also.
Shove your forum where the sun dont shine. i wont ever come back and i WONT EVER be bullied/personally attacked/slandered.
By the scum on your board and mods.

-------------------------------

After this episode had ended and i joined a new forum (thttp://www.december212012.com/phpBB2/index.php) thinking this was not a fluke. We then decided to talk about this corruption and confront it head on. Only to be met with more fascism. Here is my email.

we live in a world of diversity. Learning to get along with others whose ideals are not our own is a real challenge. while we don't all agree in our personal philosophies, we can agree on core principles to live side by side.

we do not live in a 1984 state or environment. the rules of this forum apply equally to everyone. you will never be granted just cause to break the forum rules no matter what forum you go to or become a member of. personal attacks in forums are never allowed .... anywhere !!!

Adhering to forum rules does not compromise your beliefs, ethics or morals. You need to learn how to do what you are wanting to do within the confines of the rules. you evidently have not.

Cya!"(forum owner)




-------------------

Im glad you see my freedoms as some kind of joke. Im sure if you were put in the same situation you would do the same. We dont yet live in a 1984 but unless people see these dangers and wake up and actually realise freedom of thought is being erroded then it will be too late.

An ideal you have yet to see. The freedom of expossing corruption within a fascistic system
should not be witheld and anyone who does so should be regarded as corrupt

-------------

Ignorance and lack of ideals towards a new 1984 are extremely evident here......Im done with his corrupt manner.


----------------


People we must unite and NEVER give in to this fascistic bullying. Corruption/fascism and oppression of any kind must be exposed. The internet is an ideal of freedom towards free thinking intellectuals and should always be that way. The elite dont like how powerfull the internet has become. The internet serves as a voice
for the populace to speak out on corruption. I WILL NEVER BOW TO ANY FORM OF CORRUPTION AND IGNORANCE, I WILL ALWAYS SEEK TO CONDEM THIS. ALWAYS.



Peace out