somebody's watching you

[eFestivals]

PS: Brown - Bilderberg; leaves office; suddenly hugely wealthy.

Can you recognise a pattern here?

Edited November 21, 2013 by eFestivals

[zero000]

I thought the majority of the money politicians make after leaving politics is through the public speaking circuit? Blair earned £400,000 from two 30 minute speeches for example.

Edited November 21, 2013 by zero000

[LondonTom]

you saying Snowden is under the puppet masters too and it's all slight off hand to distract us

Edited November 21, 2013 by LondonTom

[fred quimby]

PS: Brown - Bilderberg; leaves office; suddenly hugely wealthy.

Can you recognise a pattern here?

[eFestivals]

umm they were all prime ministers.

Not saying there aren't shadowy figures that pull the worlds strings for their own satisfaction. But there are loads of other explainations as well no doubt.

Yep, there are other explanations - but it still seems odd that the job positions they each (excluding Brown, so far) have taken up have only been with companies that are in the upper echelons of Bilderberg, and not any old Tom Dick or 'Arry companies instead.

After all, these people as ex-PMs are of value to any company that wants them, and there's certainly 'outsider' companies that could offer them enough dosh while enabling those ex-PMs to not be tainted by suspicion of massive corruption via association with some of the world's most suspect corporations.

And in each case, the sudden wealth comes along before the work that might justify that sudden huge wealth.

[fred quimby]

oh and Neil I blame you for now having that Rockwell song in my head now

[t8yman]

I heard Sam Harris talking on a podcast a few days ago about his thoughts on Obama, and how went from an almost pacifist to an absolute warmonger, his take on it was very interesting. Paraphrasing, he said that Obama went into office with all good intentions - shutting down gitmo, pulling out of Iraq and Afghan, but suddenly the reality of being responsible for the safety and security of 300m people brings a lot of things home. I can only imagine its a bit like the difference between being childless and then having a child, your whole world view changes, and just being responsible for one child changes people forever, imagine being responsible for 300 million of them?

Not excusing anything, but it was an interesting thought, I always subscribed to the Bill Hicks view of the situation, with the newly inaugerated president being led into a cigar filled room, and being shown a video of the Kennedy assasination from an angle no-one has ever seen before, showing 2 shotters stood on the grassy knoll, the lights go up and a shadowy figure says to the pres "Any questions?"

[Spindles]

I've always felt that that might be exactly the case for any elected leader in the West, first day in the office and you get hit with the honest truth about the nation's obligations, the things that you've been saying you would change but now find out why you cannot for reasons shadier than are publicly shared. This was something that was included in Yes Prime Minister many years ago and I genuinely wonder just how much truth there was in that.

[eFestivals]

I've always felt that that might be exactly the case for any elected leader in the West, first day in the office and you get hit with the honest truth about the nation's obligations, the things that you've been saying you would change but now find out why you cannot for reasons shadier than are publicly shared. This was something that was included in Yes Prime Minister many years ago and I genuinely wonder just how much truth there was in that.

but if you get 'hit' with those obligations, who is doing the hitting?

While it might be true that a leader suddenly becomes overwhelmed by the responsibilities, surely there's someone putting all of that onto him? A more-evil-than-Sir-Humphrey type, who lays it all on him in such a way that that Sir Humphrey is pulling the strings and not the leader.

The amount of consistency in this 'sudden realisation' across any leader of any political shade in any five-eyes country suggests something that is not a natural occurrence.

[feral chile]

The most frightening thing about states (and beyond state entities) having this level of power is not how it might be used today, but how it might be used on another. Imagine the world today if this level of power had existed during the McCarthy era, or in Stalinist Russia. In a way we are lucky that the shower of shit in charge at the moment are only concerned about punishing the people they despise and shoring up the finances of their friends, they might be tw*ts but they aren't the pure evil that could exist, just greedy, selfish, narrow viewed fools.

Revolution is needed, but I feel it is a long, long way off and would not resemble revolution as we understand it.

Edited November 22, 2013 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

our democracy is based on a bureaucracy that's taken on its own, dysfunctional personality.

No. This is where, I feel, people get it so wrong.

That is not its own-created "dysfunctional personality", it's its very purpose.

If you look at each major 'democratic' political reform thru the ages, you'll see it's a few crumbs thrown from the table while slight-of-hand is used to concentrate real power elsewhere.

[fred quimby]

The amount of consistency in this 'sudden realisation' across any leader of any political shade in any five-eyes country suggests something that is not a natural occurrence.

[fred quimby]

No. This is where, I feel, people get it so wrong.

That is not its own-created "dysfunctional personality", it's its very purpose.

If you look at each major 'democratic' political reform thru the ages, you'll see it's a few crumbs thrown from the table while slight-of-hand is used to concentrate real power elsewhere.

Edited November 22, 2013 by fred quimby

[eFestivals]

Um if it does happen all the time then it is a natural occurance surely

Only if it happens naturally, rather than as the result of an outside force.

It's a guess that its the result of a natural realisation no less than it's a guess to suggest that it might not be.

[windy_miller]

If we do indeed have puppet masters pulling our politicians strings. Then there is a great video on youtube about the federal reserve and who actually owns it/its purpose etc, it did seem a bit mad when I first watched it...I'll try to find it when i get home tonight

Saying that I am still a bit wary of the Snowden leaks tbh. It seems odd if they are doing this much spying, that his managed to get so much out there...

[5co77ie]

.... because the "facts" it stated about Horus (the Egyptian god) were completely untrue.

[windy_miller]

Woah! How did you know?

[zero000]

So the NSA is monitoring porn sites in a seek to discredit people who visit them. Is nothing sacred anymore!?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/nsa-files-live-coverage-developments-reaction

[5co77ie]

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but it just rattles of a list of "facts" such as Horus was born on 25th December, and that he was born to a virgin called Mary. It gives no evidence to back up any of these "facts", so I decided to do a bit of research into Horus before preceding any further with the film. Turns out that all these "facts" are indeed bollocks. I switched it off after that.

[windy_miller]

so before you checked you were willing to believe the 'facts' about a 'god'?

Edited November 27, 2013 by windy_miller

[eFestivals]

So the NSA is monitoring porn sites in a seek to discredit people who visit them. Is nothing sacred anymore!?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/nsa-files-live-coverage-developments-reaction

Yep, there's still one thing that's sacred. And that's the spies ever-increasing budgets.

It's a system that works. Spy on politicians to get the dirt on them, and then use that dirt to ensure your own power.

[russycarps]

If russell brands campaign gathered pace and people actually started taking notice of what he said and questioning things, I guarantee childporn would be "found" on his computer harddrive and he be utterly discredited.

[zero000]

Has there every actually been a case where the intelligence agencies have admitted to blackmailing a British politician? It wouldn't surprise me if it had happened.

[eFestivals]

Has there every actually been a case where the intelligence agencies have admitted to blackmailing a British politician? It wouldn't surprise me if it had happened.

The agencies haven't as far as I know.

But there's been admissions by ex-agents of them having worked against elected politicians - the most prominent being Harold Wilson.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I'm currently working on a piece to do with the way media interacts with terrorism and terrorist groups, and it's struck me how similar a lot of the measures we're seeing the state take against the media with regards to NSA and Snowden, are to the measures the state took against the media in the mid 80's to do with the 'ra, to prevent the true facts getting out.

(Fingers crossed what I'm writing will end up a lot better written than that paragraph has)

Edited December 4, 2013 by thesecretingredientiscrime