Yes, the blog content has been slightly diverted of late. The original aim was to comment on local politics, which are frequently influenced by global issues. Hence the wider view taken in more recent posts. Staying with local issues for the moment, it would appear that the Isle of Man has its own little New World Order agenda going on. We find a new ministership has been created to ensure that MHKs toe the line. ‘To drive through change’. How convenient that the CM could find someone like Mr Robertshaw to fit the bill. But how to explain further outgoings in times of public constraint? You could always have an MHK pave the way by his turning to the media (a permitted leak?) to explain how Mr Bell was overloaded with work and needed a second-in-command. One of the recent changes that the public has become aware of is the reluctance of government to seek dialogue with us. Where would they be without us though? We put them in their present positions, after all. Many thanks to the backbenchers who have successfully responded to this by organising open discussion of any topics – to coincide with the Big Debate evenings where the audience has been selected and members will presumably be requested to vote on carefully worded proposals. Say no more! At least some of our MHKs are keen to keep in touch with us and let us have our say, it seems. However, I have yet to hear an MHK utter a word in disagreement with IOM Government stance on external affairs and can only assume that there is a narrow path to tread. External affairs are presumably decided for us and we are expected to go along with things. But just supposing we were expected to fall in line with the latest warmongering tactics of an ‘ally’?
The Russians were responsible for the attack on MH17, claimed the US within a very short time of the tragedy having occurred. On what did they base their claims? ‘Common sense’ and social media, it seems. Yet the initial and ensuing hype has been sufficient to chivy members of NATO into agreeing to a ‘spearhead’ force to respond rapidly to any situation which might occur. How easily could such a situation arise? Too easily, it seems. The controlled western media’s selective reports can lead to situations being blown out of proportion in no time at all. We recently experienced Reuters ‘mistranslation’ with regard to Russian troops in the Ukraine. The slip up and retraction did not exactly hit the headlines though.
How easy it is to edit footage and create an evil enemy. Take the scenes from the MH17 tragedy, for example. Any reasonable person would have been horrified to see the images of a teddy bear being held aloft as a ‘trophy’. What we did not see is what happened directly afterwards. The teddy was placed gently on the ground and the man in question doffed his hat:
We want those bastards to see whom they shot down,” the man said, “Do you see?” meaning that there were innocent children who died in the crash.
The news coverage of the attack on this aircraft, so obviously the work of the Russians, according to the US government has gone very quiet. Although western media representatives attended the press conference given in the Kremlin where many queries were raised: http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ , reports of this did not appear in the western media, needless to say.
Patrick Henningsen, an investigative journalist, (and where do you find those in mainstream these days?) informs us of many points that western msm has not reported. He raises numerous queries, which leave the reader/listener to question who was really responsible for this tragic loss of life.
Would Obama be so quick to point fingers and pinpoint yet another enemy if the potential war was to take place on US soil? Would he not be very cautious about fomenting war if his family were to be in the front line? It is too easy to send strangers to engage in combat on foreign soil. If we do not start to question what is going on we could end up with WW3. It would not be the first time that countries have been led to war under false pretences.
This is getting really confusing. Assad was the bogey man who had to be unseated. Now the US may seek Assad’s co-operation to root out ISIS. But just a minute – it seems the US was considering arming ISIS at one point.
The rhetoric has changed again. What is going on?
It seems that the US is now dependent on wars to prop up the debt-based monetary system.
It would be preferable to leave the scary headlines to mainstream media but msm does not cover this topic so apologies for the apocalyptic headline on the above, which does not devalue the content btw.
Scrutiny of the US paranoid stance on so many diverse nations is essential if lives are to be spared. Taking things at face value and accepting the hype is exactly what we are supposed to do. Cognitive dissonance is not easy to deal with but wars have usually been initiated by hype so it is surely essential that we question what is going on. We got it so wrong with Iraq. Should we really accept the current ‘Feindbild’, whichever that might be, without question?