|
"My
last edition was more than a month ago. In that time a lot has
happened, not that I could tell you what it all was. But I'm back. The
site may not be updated as frequently as I would like. I'll aim for at
least a weekly edition and see how things go. I did need the break
though - it can really do your head in, watching all the worldwide
corruption on a regular basis.
The week
in Rome was a welcome break from the madness of the world. Rather than
see the madness of the world from London and a PC screen, I
experienced an Italian flavour of insanity with some international
spice thrown in to keep things intresting.
Actually,
things in Rome were fairly calm, apart from some home-grown trouble.
No, not England fans trying to get into Turkey, but a prat from Wales
who wanted to express his views with fisticuffs.
The
Communist Party rally in Rome was more like a small carnival but
wasn't a particularly high-profile affair, suggesting that it was a
regular occurrence.
Some
Italians could see Berlusconi for the fascist he is whilst others
couldn't see the problem in the Prime Minister owning most media
outlets in the country.
The
stupidity of humanity is truly amazing sometimes. A relative of
mine insisted to me last week that the fluoridation of water would be
more beneficial to poor children with bad teeth than the provision of
a tooth-brush. It's one thing for people to not bother to think about
things, but to actually do what looks like the reverse if it were
possible is another matter altogether. A sort of anti-thought, as
anti-matter is to matter. Together, the two are explosive, They
produce expounding stupidity on a vast scale.
I don't
even know where this un-named relative got this idea from, but I have
suspicions that it could have been the Guardian. I don't think any
newspaper would print such utter nonsense, but this seemingly
well-educated and intelligent individual appears to have come up with
this gem themselves.
The
same un-named individual poured scourn on my observation that Michael
Howard's ascendancy to the leadership of the Conservative Party was
very well orchestrated. How could it be anything else? Sure there
were flutters in the newspapers - the Tories have been an absolute
shower since the mid-nineties. If Labour challenged them to a game of
snakes and ladders in 1997 they would have shown the lack of
organisation and unity at Smith Square.
However,
once Iain Duncan-Smith had effectively repeated the words of one of
his predecessors, Mr Major, with his "put-up or
shut-up"-type missive, events began to move with a degree of
order and planning that has been absent from the Conservative Party
for the best part of a decade.
Before
you knew it, a vote was announced, the necessary votes cast, IDS out
on his ear and Howard glides into position un-opposed.
The
party was discussing having the membership vote on the single choice
of Mr Howard, an election worthy of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps wisely,
they decided against it. A key reason for the tight orchestration and
the lack of competing candidates was to prevent the party membership
the opportunity to air their views. Had this happened, the division of
the Conservatives would have been laid bare for all to see. Offering a
vote to anoint the chosen one might well have been too rich for some,
hence the reason why it was dropped. The membership were held
responsible for the labeled failure of IDS, because they chose him. If
a vote were offered to the rank and file, they would show that they
have no idea what the Conservative Party should be about any more. Is
it for Europe or against? Pro-gay or bash them all? Allowing
these issues airing would once again divide the party, instead of
galvanising the whole with issues of honesty and morality, such as
Blair's deception for war or the farce that is our transport system.
The fact
that no-one ran against Michael Howard is indicative of the desire in
the Conseratives to resurrect themselves - for the first time they
looked like a unified group of politicians who were working with some
kind of order in their activity. Howard remained unopposed because
no-one would win if they rocked the boat once he had been tipped to
take over. In two weeks, the Tories turned themselves around in the
eyes of a section of the previously skeptical public. Those polls that
suggest otherwise are either biased, not taken the whole situation
into account or are just lying. As I said though, it was all well
orchestrated, though some would vehemently disagree with me on that.
The
new shadow cabinet was announced today.
I have to wonder why the posts of health and education have been
combined, but the analysis of the associated editor of the Telegraph
on tonight's Newsnight may have meaning for some - had they been
separate posts, that would have pushed the numbers up to thirteen,
unlucky for some.
I might have
mentioned this before, but seems to me that our dear Mr Oliver Letwin
is getting much closer to an overt conflict of interests. Now that
Oliver is the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has a greater
influence on the economic policy of the UK, not least by what he
catches Gordon Brown out on at the despatch box. So for those of you
who don't know this little nugget yet, let me satisfy your now rampant
curiosity as to where I was going with this: Oliver Letwin is the
Managing Director of NM Rothschild, the investment bank. I don't even
know how he finds the time to do both. However, he must have the
position for a reason. If he doesn't devote a great deal of office
time to Rothschilds, maybe he makes up for it by being their man on
the benches, albeit in opposition.
Surely though,
being the managing director of one of the continents powerhouses of
finance might affect his judgement ever so slightly on economic
issues?
On to the
royal family. Well figuratively speaking anyway. This Prince
Charles business really is getting people excited. There are still
some in the UK who have no real idea what is going on with this story,
unless they saw the News of the World yesterday perhaps. It screamed
the headline on the internet "IS CHARLES BISEXUAL?"
That would pretty
much explain the story according to the international press for any UK
citizens who still don't know what's going on, thanks to the gag
orders on the British media. For a little more detail, the allegation
is that Charles was found in a compromising position (shagging) with
his valet.
What has
confounded many, however, is why Charles' private secretary, Sir
Michael Peat, decided to pre-empt any details with a public statement.
Many have questioned why such a stupid move was made - didn't they
realise it would make things worse? Notice also that this all took
place whilst Charlie-boy was out the country.
Skolnick's
story seems ridiculous at first glance, the suggestion that
photographs exist of Bush, Blair and Charles in a menage-a-trois and,
more to the point, his indication that major news organisations are in
possession of said pictures and accompanying notes but are sitting on
them. But if we come back to the question of why Peat made the public
statement of Charles' behalf, we must look at the situation
differently and consider how the newspapers work. Skolnick's
implication is that the stories about Charles that actually HAVE hit
the news-stands and 24/7 death-by-television-news channels are merely
there to divert attention from the fact that the news organisations
are sitting on this juicy news-item and blackmail material.
Does the
suggestion that it is a diversion stand up? My understanding as the
esteemed Mr Skolnick would appear to have it is that even if the photo
in hand is an electronic mock-up, nonetheless there is something to
this effect in the hands of a news organisation. If this is in fact
the case, the newsies would be running around trying to figure out if
they could use it, and how they might use it.
This being the
case, those depicted in the picture would be very nervous about its
publication. Rumours about the sexuality of various royals have
abounded for a long time - I heard it on "good authority"
from someone who really doesn't know anything, that the Duke of York
was HIV positive, but when the time came they would say he had
Leukaemia. Apparently Prince Philip, Charlie's dad, has sired children
by other women and they attended Harrow School. It could all be
garbage, but news stories suggesting that Prince Charles is bi-sexual
or even gay come as no surprise to some. The statement that Sir
Michael Peat made was a non-statement when you think about it. The only
thing in it that was concrete was that he said that Charles was the
focus of allegations:
"In
recent days, there have been media reports concerning an allegation
that a former Royal Household employee witnessed an incident some
years ago involving a senior member of the Royal Family.
The
speculation needs to be brought to an end.
The allegation
was that the Prince of Wales was involved in the incident.
This
allegation is untrue. The incident which the former employee claims to
have witnessed did not take place.
There is a
particular sadness about this allegation because it was made by a
former Royal Household employee who, unfortunately, has suffered from
post-traumatic stress disorder and has previously suffered from
alcoholism following active service in the Falklands.
He has, in the
past, made other unrelated allegations, which the police have fully
investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.
The newspaper
group that sought to publish this allegation knew this and has
described the former employee as 'hardly a reliable witness'.
This was why
the newspaper concerned agreed to the injunction on Saturday
afternoon.
The Prince of
Wales has always tried to avoid becoming involved in disputes with the
media, which he appreciates fulfils an important role.
It is
important, however, to state clearly that the allegation is entirely
untrue."
Is it possible
that Skolnick is on the money and that Sir Michael Peat has come out
to name Charles so that the true allegation concerning the photo is
buried under the flurry created by his statement?
The news
organisations get up to a great many things before a story is
eventually published. Often games go on concerning the content - in
the case of stories that damage reputations, those who co-operate are
frequently spared the full character-assassination afforded to other
characters in the plot. It's not inconceivable that behind the scenes,
within the offices of an editor or two somewhere around the world - in
London or New York perhaps, an editor was looking at a picture
supplied to him which showed the heir to the British throne indulging
in sex acts with the British Prime Minister and the so-called US
President, one George W Bush. Before having the chance to successfully
use the picture in the publication, the editor has the scoop pulled
out from under him by Sir Michael Peat's statement. It's chief purpose
would seem to actually point all attention at Prince Charles.
If others were
involved in the `allegations' or in the picture's content, naming the
Prince of Wales is a master-stroke of diversion, pointing everyone
away from the real story and ensuring that the terms of reference are
already set out. If there is the first ever international media
discussion into whether Prince Charles plays for the other team, it
will be a while before other allegations are even explored. Like that
of George W Bush flying around the country with his apparent sex-mate,
Victor Ashe, the mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee. Hey, I don't know if
it's true, but others have made the allegations in very public forums
and have never been sued for libel. Draw from that what you will. As
for our Dear Leader, Tony Blair, well I suppose little would surprise
me these days.
Since time is
pushing along, I'll try to finish up with this. Al Gore may have
been a complete muppet in the 2000 election, even if he won it. But
I've seen one of his best performances yet, having watched and
listened to his
speech given yesterday (Sunday) in Washington DC to the MoveOn.org
group.
That should help
set the agenda in the US, if the media bother to pay any attention to
him at all. Of course Gore is a controlled man, working for others -
but then, aren't they all. At least if he keeps talking like this then
some more people may start to think about things for themselves, even
if they can't see how the Democrats have betrayed their own party and
their membership.
BTW, I had the
same dumb email as PJW at PropagandaMatrix.com:
"Your
site is the singularly most-offensive and moronic thing I have ever
seen. Please find a serious use for your life, because it appears you
have massive amounts of time to devote to an enterprise which only the
weakmind conspiracy-mad types could appreciate. At first I thought the
site was a joke. It appears I underestimated the capacity for
stupidity out there in the world, not having much exposure to those in
the "lower echelons" of life out there."
What was I saying
about stupidity? He sent the same email to at least two different
site-owners. How can it be the "singularly most-offensive and
moronic thing" he's ever seen if it applies to two
different sites? As it is, I haven't even touched my site for a month
and I've therefore devoted no time to it whatsoever. Hardly the
massive investment of waking day in the `enterprise' the way he sees
it. The email is almost spam I suppose. I've wasted enough time on the
moron who wrote it though.
That's as much as
I can muster and since tonight is now tomorrow and this morning is
already here, I bid you good-night."
-
Editor |
