Monday, December 31

George Orwell's supressed preface to Animal Farm


I know that the English intelligentsia have plenty of reason for their timidity and dishonesty, indeed I know by heart the arguments by which they justify themselves. But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

George Orwell

The Freedom of the Press

Orwell's Proposed Preface to ‘Animal Farm’

This book was first thought of, so far as the central idea goes, in 1937, but was not written down until about the end of 1943. By the time when it came to be written it was obvious that there would be great difficulty in getting it published (in spite of the present book shortage which ensures that anything describable as a book will ‘sell’), and in the event it was refused by four publishers. Only one of these had any ideological motive. Two had been publishing anti-Russian books for years, and the other had no noticeable political colour. One publisher actually started by accepting the book, but after making the preliminary arrangements he decided to consult the Ministry of Information, who appear to have warned him, or at any rate strongly advised him, against publishing it. Here is an extract from his letter:

I mentioned the reaction I had had from an important official in the Ministry of Information with regard to Animal Farm. I must confess that this expression of opinion has given me seriously to think... I can see now that it might be regarded as something which it was highly ill-advised to publish at the present time. If the fable were addressed generally to dictators and dictatorships at large then publication would be all right, but the fable does follow, as I see now, so completely the progress of the Russian Soviets and their two dictators, that it can apply only to Russia, to the exclusion of the other dictatorships. Another thing: it would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs[*]. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are.

* It is not quite clear whether this suggested modification is Mr... ’s own idea, or originated with the Ministry of Information; but it seems to have the official ring about it. [Orwell’s Note]

This kind of thing is not a good symptom. Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship (except security censorship, which no one objects to in war time) over books which are not officially sponsored. But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.

Any fairminded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian ‘co-ordination’ that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.

Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. Everyone knows this, nearly everyone acts on it. Any serious criticism of the Soviet régime, any disclosure of facts which the Soviet government would prefer to keep hidden, is next door to unprintable. And this nation-wide conspiracy to flatter our ally takes place, curiously enough, against a background of genuine intellectual tolerance. For though you arc not allowed to criticize the Soviet government, at least you are reasonably free to criticise our own. Hardly anyone will print an attack on Stalin, but it is quite safe to attack Churchill, at any rate in books and periodicals. And throughout five years of war, during two or three of which we were fighting for national survival, countless books, pamphlets and articles advocating a compromise peace have been published without interference. More, they have been published without exciting much disapproval. So long as the prestige of the USSR is not involved, the principle of free speech has been reasonably well upheld. There are other forbidden topics, and I shall mention some of them presently, but the prevailing attitude towards the USSR is much the most serious symptom. It is, as it were, spontaneous, and is not due to the action of any pressure group.

The servility with which the greater part of the English intelligentsia have swallowed and repeated Russian propaganda from 1941 onwards would be quite astounding if it were not that they have behaved similarly on several earlier occasions. On one controversial issue after another the Russian viewpoint has been accepted without examination and then publicized with complete disregard to historical truth or intellectual decency. To name only one instance, the BBC celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Red Army without mentioning Trotsky. This was about as accurate as commemorating the battle of Trafalgar without mentioning Nelson, but it evoked no protest from the English intelligentsia. In the internal struggles in the various occupied countries, the British press has in almost all cases sided with the faction favored by the Russians and libelled the opposing faction, sometimes suppressing material evidence in order to do so. A particularly glaring case was that of Colonel Mihailovich, the Jugoslav Chetnik leader. The Russians, who had their own Jugoslav protege in Marshal Tito, accused Mihailovich of collaborating with the Germans. This accusation was promptly taken up by the British press: Mihailovich’s supporters were given no chance of answering it, and facts contradicting it were simply kept out of print. In July of 1943 the Germans offered a reward of 100,000 gold crowns for the capture of Tito, and a similar reward for the capture of Mihailovich. The British press ‘splashed’ the reward for Tito, but only one paper mentioned (in small print) the reward for Mihailovich: and the charges of collaborating with the Germans continued. Very similar things happened during the Spanish civil war. Then, too, the factions on the Republican side which the Russians were determined to crush were recklessly libeled in the English left-wing [sic] press, and any statement in their defence even in letter form, was refused publication. At present, not only is serious criticism of the USSR considered reprehensible, but even the fact of the existence of such criticism is kept secret in some cases. For example, shortly before his death Trotsky had written a biography of Stalin. One may assume that it was not an altogether unbiased book, but obviously it was saleable. An American publisher had arranged to issue it and the book was in print — 1 believe the review copies had been sent out — when the USSR entered the war. The book was immediately withdrawn. Not a word about this has ever appeared in the British press, though clearly the existence of such a book, and its suppression, was a news item worth a few paragraphs.

It is important to distinguish between the kind of censorship that the English literary intelligentsia voluntarily impose upon themselves, and the censorship that can sometimes be enforced by pressure groups. Notoriously, certain topics cannot be discussed because of ‘vested interests’. The best-known case is the patent medicine racket. Again, the Catholic Church has considerable influence in the press and can silence criticism of itself to some extent. A scandal involving a Catholic priest is almost never given publicity, whereas an Anglican priest who gets into trouble (e.g. the Rector of Stiffkey) is headline news. It is very rare for anything of an anti-Catholic tendency to appear on the stage or in a film. Any actor can tell you that a play or film which attacks or makes fun of the Catholic Church is liable to be boycotted in the press and will probably be a failure. But this kind of thing is harmless, or at least it is understandable. Any large organisation will look after its own interests as best it can, and overt propaganda is not a thing to object to. One would no more expect the Daily Worker to publicize unfavorable facts about the USSR than one would expect the Catholic Herald to denounce the Pope. But then every thinking person knows the Daily Worker and the Catholic Herald for what they are. What is disquieting is that where the USSR and its policies are concerned one cannot expect intelligent criticism or even, in many cases, plain honesty from Liberal [sic — and throughout as typescript] writers and journalists who are under no direct pressure to falsify their opinions. Stalin is sacrosanct and certain aspects of his policy must not be seriously discussed. This rule has been almost universally observed since 1941, but it had operated, to a greater extent than is sometimes realised, for ten years earlier than that. Throughout that time, criticism of the Soviet régime from the left could only obtain a hearing with difficulty. There was a huge output of anti-Russian literature, but nearly all of it was from the Conservative angle and manifestly dishonest, out of date and actuated by sordid motives. On the other side there was an equally huge and almost equally dishonest stream of pro-Russian propaganda, and what amounted to a boycott on anyone who tried to discuss all-important questions in a grown-up manner. You could, indeed, publish anti-Russian books, but to do so was to make sure of being ignored or misrepresented by nearly me whole of the highbrow press. Both publicly and privately you were warned that it was ‘not done’. What you said might possibly be true, but it was ‘inopportune’ and played into the hands of this or that reactionary interest. This attitude was usually defended on the ground that the international situation, and me urgent need for an Anglo-Russian alliance, demanded it; but it was clear that this was a rationalization. The English intelligentsia, or a great part of it, had developed a nationalistic loyalty towards me USSR, and in their hearts they felt that to cast any doubt on me wisdom of Stalin was a kind of blasphemy. Events in Russia and events elsewhere were to be judged by different standards. The endless executions in me purges of 1936-8 were applauded by life-long opponents of capital punishment, and it was considered equally proper to publicize famines when they happened in India and to conceal them when they happened in me Ukraine. And if this was true before the war, the intellectual atmosphere is certainly no better now.

But now to come back to this book of mine. The reaction towards it of most English intellectuals will be quite simple: ‘It oughtn’t to have been published.’ Naturally, those reviewers who understand the art of denigration will not attack it on political grounds but on literary ones. They will say that it is a dull, silly book and a disgraceful waste of paper. This may well be true, but it is obviously not me whole of the story. One does not say that a book ‘ought not to have been published’ merely because it is a bad book. After all, acres of rubbish are printed daily and no one bothers. The English intelligentsia, or most of them, will object to this book because it traduces their Leader and (as they see it) does harm to the cause of progress. If it did me opposite they would have nothing to say against it, even if its literary faults were ten times as glaring as they are. The success of, for instance, the Left Book Club over a period of four or five years shows how willing they are to tolerate both scurrility and slipshod writing, provided that it tells them what they want to hear.

The issue involved here is quite a simple one: Is every opinion, however unpopular — however foolish, even — entitled to a hearing? Put it in that form and nearly any English intellectual will feel that he ought to say ‘Yes’. But give it a concrete shape, and ask, ‘How about an attack on Stalin? Is that entitled to a hearing?’, and the answer more often than not will be ‘No’, In that case the current orthodoxy happens to be challenged, and so the principle of free speech lapses. Now, when one demands liberty of speech and of the press, one is not demanding absolute liberty. There always must be, or at any rate there always will be, some degree of censorship, so long as organised societies endure. But freedom, as Rosa Luxembourg [sic] said, is ‘freedom for the other fellow’. The same principle is contained in the famous words of Voltaire: ‘I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilization means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakable way. Both capitalist democracy and the western versions of Socialism have till recently taken that principle for granted. Our Government, as I have already pointed out, still makes some show of respecting it. The ordinary people in the street-partly, perhaps, because they are not sufficiently interested in ideas to be intolerant about them-still vaguely hold that ‘I suppose everyone’s got a right to their own opinion.’ It is only, or at any rate it is chiefly, the literary and scientific intelligentsia, the very people who ought to be the guardians of liberty, who are beginning to despise it, in theory as well as in practice.

One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought. This argument was used, for instance, to justify the Russian purges. The most ardent Russophile hardly believed that all of the victims were guilty of all the things they were accused of: but by holding heretical opinions they ‘objectively’ harmed the régime, and therefore it was quite right not only to massacre them but to discredit them by false accusations. The same argument was used to justify the quite conscious lying that went on in the left-wing press about the Trotskyists and other Republican minorities in the Spanish civil war. And it was used again as a reason for yelping against habeas corpus when Mosley was released in 1943.

These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists. Soon after the suppressed Daily Worker had been reinstated, I was lecturing to a workingmen’s college in South London. The audience were working-class and lower-middle class intellectuals — the same sort of audience that one used to meet at Left Book Club branches. The lecture had touched on the freedom of the press, and at the end, to my astonishment, several questioners stood up and asked me: Did I not think that the lifting of the ban on the Daily Worker was a great mistake? When asked why, they said that it was a paper of doubtful loyalty and ought not to be tolerated in war time. I found myself defending the Daily Worker, which has gone out of its way to libel me more than once. But where had these people learned this essentially totalitarian outlook? Pretty certainly they had learned it from the Communists themselves! Tolerance and decency are deeply rooted in England, but they are not indestructible, and they have to be kept alive partly by conscious effort. The result of preaching totalitarian doctrines is to weaken the instinct by means of which free peoples know what is or is not dangerous. The case of Mosley illustrates this. In 1940 it was perfectly right to intern Mosley, whether or not he had committed any technical crime. We were fighting for our lives and could not allow a possible quisling to go free. To keep him shut up, without trial, in 1943 was an outrage. The general failure to see this was a bad symptom, though it is true that the agitation against Mosley’s release was partly factitious and partly a rationalization of other discontents. But how much of the present slide towards Fascist ways of thought is traceable to the ‘anti-Fascism’ of the past ten years and the unscrupulousness it has entailed?

It is important to realise that the current Russomania is only a symptom of the general weakening of the western liberal tradition. Had the MOI chipped in and definitely vetoed the publication of this book, the bulk of the English intelligentsia would have seen nothing disquieting in this. Uncritical loyalty to the USSR happens to be the current orthodoxy, and where the supposed interests of the USSR are involved they are willing to tolerate not only censorship but the deliberate falsification of history. To name one instance. At the death of John Reed, the author of Ten Days that Shook the World — first-hand account of the early days of the Russian Revolution — the copyright of the book passed into the hands of the British Communist Party, to whom I believe Reed had bequeathed it. Some years later the British Communists, having destroyed the original edition of the book as completely as they could, issued a garbled version from which they had eliminated mentions of Trotsky and also omitted the introduction written by Lenin. If a radical intelligentsia had still existed in Britain, this act of forgery would have been exposed and denounced in every literary paper in the country. As it was there was little or no protest. To many English intellectuals it seemed quite a natural thing to do. And this tolerance or [sic = of?] plain dishonesty means much more than that admiration for Russia happens to be fashionable at this moment. Quite possibly that particular fashion will not last. For all I know, by the time this book is published my view of the Soviet régime may be the generally-accepted one. But what use would that be in itself? To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment.

I am well acquainted with all the arguments against freedom of thought and speech — the arguments which claim that it cannot exist, and the arguments which claim that it ought not to. I answer simply that they don’t convince me and that our civilisation over a period of four hundred years has been founded on the opposite notice. For quite a decade past I have believed that the existing Russian régime is a mainly evil thing, and I claim the right to say so, in spite of the fact that we are allies with the USSR in a war which I want to see won. If I had to choose a text to justify myself, I should choose the line from Milton:

By the known rules of ancient liberty.

The word ancient emphasises the fact that intellectual freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our characteristic western culture could only doubtfully exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals arc visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or damned, not on its merits but according to political expediency. And others who do not actually hold this view assent to it from sheer cowardice. An example of this is the failure of the numerous and vocal English pacifists to raise their voices against the prevalent worship of Russian militarism. According to those pacifists, all violence is evil, and they have urged us at every stage of the war to give in or at least to make a compromise peace. But how many of them have ever suggested that war is also evil when it is waged by the Red Army? Apparently the Russians have a right to defend themselves, whereas for us to do [so] is a deadly sin. One can only explain this contradiction in one way: that is, by a cowardly desire to keep in with the bulk of the intelligentsia, whose patriotism is directed towards the USSR rather than towards Britain. I know that the English intelligentsia have plenty of reason for their timidity and dishonesty, indeed I know by heart the arguments by which they justify themselves. But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. The common people still vaguely subscribe to that doctrine and act on it. In our country — it is not the same in all countries: it was not so in republican France, and it is not so in the USA today — it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact that I have written this preface.


For some reason in their 2000 edition, Penguin decided to publish this preface (the only one) as Appendix with small intro. But it is preface? Preface for Ukrainian edition of Animal Farm was printed also as Appendix (II). (O. Dag)

By Penguin:


Orwell’s Proposed Preface to Animal Farm.

Space was allowed in the first edition of Animal Farm for a preface by Orwell, as the pagination of the author’s proof indicates. This preface was not included and the typescript was only found years later by Ian Angus. It was published, with an introduction by Professor Bernard Crick entitled ‘How the essay came to be written’, in The Times Literary Supplement, 15 September 1972.

George Orwell: ‘The Freedom of the Press’
First published: The Times Literary Supplement, September 15, 1972.

Machine-readable version: O. Dag
Last modified on: 2004-12-19


read more | digg story

Sunday, December 30

Creeping Fascism: From Nazi Germany to Post 9/11 America

"Americans today are seeing the same sheepish submissiveness that characterized Germany after the burning of the Reichstag." Is democracy slowly disappearing? Hitler and Franco did it in Germany and Spain. Is Bush doing it in the USA?

Added by Think!:
Is Brown doing it in the UK? Are the Globalists doing it to everyone of us who is not member of the elite cartel, the same powers who have founded and are directing the UN, the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve? Are these the same unelected people who set the agenda of your government? Are these the members of the Bilderberg Group, the CFR and Trilateral Commission and their fascist-globalist minions? Much of the evidence speaks for it.

read more | digg story


A proposed law with far-reaching consequences for American patriots now classified as Homegrown Terrorists! And gives cause to censor the internet as never before! They are coming!

Added by Think!
(picture from
Can we remain convinced that this is just a conspiracy theory? Any rational thinking person will have to, at least, suspect that the motives behind this bill, that allows the state to suspend due process and declare anyone a terrorist who has a different opinion; Anyone who is against the war, or higher taxes, or personal surveillance, or anyone who simply stands up for the US constitution?

Dissent and disagreement with government is the live's blood of Human freedom, not merely because it is the first roadblock against ... tyranny. It is also essential, because every once in a while it is right and the power to which it speaks is wrong.

- Keith Olbermann

read more | digg story

Friday, December 28

Western Intelligence Services behind Bhutto Murder?

Dictatorships quick to blame “Al Qaeda” for Bhutto assassination

(photo Dec 28 2007) Let me express my condolences to the family, friends, and supporters of Benazir Bhutto, who was murdered on 27th December 2007 by criminal elements and their powerful interest groups. There can not be any justification for killing people because of their political views or legitimate leadership. And those who murder to further their interests will be brought to justice.

Let us look at the facts and possible motives behind the assassination of the first female Prime Minister of a Muslim country.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the lives’ blood of Human freedom, not merely because it is the first roadblock against ... tyranny. It is also essential, because every once in a while it is right and the power to which it speaks is wrong.

- - - Keith Olberman

A major event was needed to renew the perceived terrorist threat, on which the erosion of liberty and civil rights, in other words, the rise of Fascism, are built on and justified with. UK’s ITV News yesterday boldly stated that Intelligence Services or Terrorists may be behind Bhutto’s assassination. I can only guess that this was a slip of the tongue, or was it? After all, we are seeing western governments blatantly admitting to their criminal agendas much more frequently in recent months. They are taking their gloves off. It does not matter what you think; Torture is good, Assassinations are justified, and Fascism is our new way of life – only do they not call it Fascism; they call it their New World Order under the Reichstags Parliament of the United Nations. The government is your friend!

Qui Bono?

Who benefits from Bhutto’s death? It was easily predictable that Bhutto’s assassination would create unrest in Pakistan just after a period of Martial Law, and shortly before major elections are to be held in Pakistan. Not surprisingly, it was the CIA who pushed for Bhutto's return to Pakistan, while the Bush administration is supporting military dictator Musharraf.

Let’s face it! This is not about a corrupt politician or her husband, who were arrested and convicted for pocketing millions of taxpayers’ money for their own gain, twice! Benazir Bhutto’s assassination has nothing to do with her policies; it is not about some political strategy that could interfere with some terrorists plans to freely roam and plot “Al Qaeda” attacks in Pakistan, as government controlled “news” will make us believe. Western intelligence Services and criminal elements of their governments already provide safe havens for terrorists on Western soil, as proven in the remarkable documentary Terrorstorm, by Alex Jones ( This assassination is about creating unrest and instability in an already volatile region. This is about pushing CIA grown “Al Qaeda” into the news again. Neocons and globalist were desperate to bring the words “terrorists” and “threat” back into the headlines to justify further erosion of our freedoms and civil liberties. The lame terrorist talking points have awoken to new life.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety. deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

- B- Benjamin Franklin

Today’s dictatorial western governments need you to be afraid of terrorists, so the mighty government can save you. They need you to be afraid of Muslim unrest, so Martial Law can be justified again in Pakistan and perhaps next time in a town near you. Fear is what Elites’ puppets Bush, Brown and Merkel & Co. want you to feel. Fear is the life-blood of their political careers. But fear we will feel not! Of course, there is the rest of society, the dumbed-down consumers of mass media, who are carefully conditioned to getting used to assassinations of political figures, so that elimination of US statesmen Ron Paul, who is spoiling the establishment’s 2008 US presidential elections, is digested easier, forgotten quicker. Be alert and pay attention to the concerted effort of powerful elites and their Muppets to continue their age-old dictatorial strategy: Divide and Impera! Divide and Conquer! Divide and create Unrest! Only this time, Neocons and cronies, and “elite” Scum, you are exposed, as the people are waking up the dark nature of your intentions. Only this time, the people are no longer falling for your self-serving propaganda and unlawful deceit. This time, you are losing, and this fight spells the downfall of dictatorship and fascism and our return of a free world, based on Sovereign Constitutional Republics.

Thursday, December 27

Ruled by Puppets of the Criminal "Elite"

Image from

From Hitler to Brown

Where Hitler left off in 1945, Anthony Blair, Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown and their comrades continue today. Adolf Hitler would turn in his grave in perverse excitement about the skillful implementation of fascist, zero-tolerance, police states under the umbrella of a totalitarian Europe. George Orwell's peek in the future "1984" depicts a reality that is a walk in the park compared to what the globalists have in stock for you and your children. For those of you who think that the government is good and has your best interest in mind, I would like to say this:

It is not only your right, but it is also your duty to:

  • Educate yourselves, your friends, family, colleagues and your neighbors
  • Learn
  • Read
  • Compare
  • Analyze
  • Conclude
  • Act
The problem is that most of us, including myself, have been conditioned by the corporate controlled media to accept whatever government script is read on air, or printed on paper. If it is on TV, the BBC, CBS, or Fox, it must be true... Of course, mainstream reporters do not tell you that they get their marching orders from the White House or 10 Downing Street. The local news anchors, those who we tend to trust, regurgitate whatever the puppet masters prescribe in their daily marching orders. It is called Yellow journalism.

BBC English, modern: Big Brother Corporation, propaganda tool of the globalist elite, deceitful

What is at stake?
A strong statement, indeed. For those of you who have not woken up to reality, these news are disturbing. For many it all seems far-fetched and unbelievable. How do we know if we do not verify the claims made and allow ourselves to consider all information. Do you think that your freedom, your health, your well-being and your life are worth this effort?

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely (cliché)

Are you one of those men who go and vent all your natural warrior energy by watching and cheering football games? Have football, or television soaps become an important part of your life? If it has, it has been done TO you by design. By focusing you on sports, soaps, the X-Factor or Strictly Come Dancing, you are neutralised, your natural survival instincts are turned off the moment you turn your TV on. It has been designed by the industrial-military complex to deliberately divert your natural warrior instincts for liberty and self determination into something that does not interfere with the globalist-elite's plans to enslave you and your family.

Criminal Elements

Many politicians are good. Most are corrupt. The majority of these are humanoids: selfish and corrupt. We, the people, have successfuly been conditioned to accept this as a way of life, something that just IS. It is working. You ARE accepting it as something that cannot be changed. That's just the way it IS... Right? While this is bad in itself, I am not talking about the general politician scum that parasitically lives off your hard earned money, stealing your rightful property under the legal cover of self serving laws.
I am talking about the puppets in highest places of government -- the criminal elements who sell their soul for a couple of coins. I am talking about the Muppet's who are knowingly deceive you, the people. I am talking about the criminal elements who attend the Bilderberg meetings or send representatives on their behalf to receive marching orders from unelected elites. I am talking about those minions who wage war and kill in your name. I am pointing to those who erode our liberties.

We are officially living in tyranny!

(to be continued)

Sunday, December 16

My Christmas Wish(es) 2007

Is it too late already?

I do not care this year about getting the latest gadget.
I do not care this year about what you may think of me.
I do not care about giving traditional presents this year.
I do care about giving the gift of waking up those who do not know. Join me and many others in this quest.

Much is at stake this time; things are happening that affect us all. More importantly, today's tendencies toward totalitarianism and intolerance of political dissent will affect our children and grandchildren, who are paying the ultimate price: Living and dying in tyranny, beacause you felt football and soaps were more important, perhaps easier to live with than reality and things that matter. How do you look into the eyes of your offspring and explain when it is too late?

What do I really care about this Christmas?
Everyone needs to wake up.

Here is the incomplete list of my Christmans wishes for 2007:
(1) We end the war in Iraq and leave.
(2) We do not start war with Iran.
(3) We get the governments out of our lives.
(4) We get the governments out of our pockets.
(5) We install checks and balances that allow the people to hold their government accountable.
(6) We expose the propaganda and lies the government and mainstream media are raining on dumbed down populations.
(7) We all read (alternative news) and challenge the status quo.
(8) We expose the left-right paradigm (divide and conquer).
(9) Everyone asks questions, demands answers. Everyone thinks.

Is that too much asked? It boils down to one simple requirement: Holding our government accountable for its actions. How can we possibly trust those who deliberately lie to the people?

History shows that we cannot.

Must Haves

  • The Obama Deception -- An Alex Jones Movie
  • Endgame -- The Movie by Alex Jones
  • Everybody Knows -- Song by Leonard Cohen
  • Diplomacy by Deception: an account of the treasonous conduct by the governments
  • Freedom to Fascism -- Movie by Aaron Russo
  • Terrorstorm -- history of government sponsored terrorism
  • The Bilderberg Group -- Book by Daniel Estulin
  • The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf
  • UnCivil Liberties -- A political thriller -- too close to reality!