Tony Blair accused of being a War Criminal at Leveson Inquiry

By Dark Politricks


At the Leveson inquiry today a man managed to access the court room and shouted at Tony Blair that he was “a war criminal” and should be arrested for war crimes as well as his links to JP Morgan and their pillaging of Iraqi state loot.
                                                                                                                                                                             
Once the man was removed from the room Blair defended himself – not on the war crimes (he knows he is a war criminal) but on the JP Morgan looting charge that had been leveled at him.

He obviously feels some guilt about being a champagne socialist who has earnt tens of millions since leaving 10 Downing St by getting stuck in with the right people in Israel, Libya and Iraq related to oil and gas contracts.

It is quite funny how often these supposedly “secure” inquiries in the UK are broken into by protesters.

Who can forget that only months ago a man managed to get a whole shopping bag of ingredients into the court and made shaving cream pies before throwing them into the face of Rupert Murdoch. He was then attacked by Ruperts much younger and agile wife Wendi Deng who knew how to protect her inheritance/husband.

It seems that whenever a globalist terrorist is being questioned at the Houses of Parliament the security guards look the other way when it comes to anyone wanting to storm the chamber and gain their 5 minutes of fame by attacking the famous person being questioned.

I cannot think of any other reason why it would keep on happening unless our most secure court house in the land is run by a private company like Group 4 who spend most of their time whilst running prisons they control bringing in drugs for prisoners for money – I jest they would never stoop so low!

They obviously turn a blind eye if someone slips a fiver in their underpaid pocket at the front door and anybody who wants to attack a witness seems to have the best chance at a Parliamentary inquiry in London.


No I am sure our fine upstanding security are always 100% on guard at important events like Levison where people are able to walk off the street sometimes with bags of food based weaponary and enter the court to prepare their attack on the witness being questioned.

All I can say is that I am glad Tony Blair‘s life is now hell.

Wherever he goes he has to have security around him to prevent angry mobs lynching him and he can’t even go to his own autobiography book signings because of the fear that angry protesters will attack him for his many crimes.

Crimes too many to list but ones that included following those Bush era idiots unflinchingly into endless war. Destroying our liberty at home by installing a high tech surveillance police state with RIPA, unfair USA extradition and Anti Terrorist Acts, and allowing evidence to be used extracted by torture as well as his well known links to dictator regimes like Gaddafi.


Also he is a person whose name is definitely near the top of the ten most wanted war criminals still alive and at large along with Cheney and Bush. Where is the Mossad when you really need them!

Anyway you can watch the performance below and the day Tony Blair has to stand trial or face some kind of justice for his crimes against humanity cannot come to soon.


Videos


Tony Blair being labelled a war criminal by a moral upstanding member of the community





Rupert Murdoch Being Attacked at the Inquiry into his News of the World phone hacking scandal








View the original article at Dark Politricks.

How do you differentiate a cult from a religion

By Dark Politricks

Watching Big Questions this morning (2 articles in a row now its spawmed) there was only one question which was "What's the difference between a Cult and Organised Religion"

On one side were the standard old age religionists, Christians, Catholics, Rabbis and Muslims and on the other side we had members of existing "new" religions such as Raelians, Moonies - or as they are called now members of the "Unification Church", an ex member of the Branch Davidians which if you remember was the target of the ATF and FBI ended up in a state sanctioned massacre of 82 religious people.

The audience was also filled with ex members of cults, physchologists who have studied the "brainwashing" techinques used by such called groups and other affected by these groups in one way of another. In my mind it is quite simple but lets look at a definition of a Cult

• a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
• an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
• the object of such devotion.
• a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
• Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

Lets look at the definition of a Religion

• a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
• a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
• the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
• the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
• the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

In mine and many in the audiences (apart from those belonging to organised religions) not much differece. Jesus was supposedly a characteristic person who had followers - apparantly a key sign of a cult.

The same could be said about Mohammed, Buddha, Hari Krishna and many other "old religions".

 The disagreement seems to be as one person said one of size. The Catholic Chuch is a huge and rich organisation whereas some of the orgainisations called cults such as the Raelians who believe we were created (just as scientisits on this planet are now starting to do with DNA) by human beings from another planet in the universe. A case of aliens geo-engineering the earth and it's inhabitants.

When compared to some of the stories that the "official" religions believe in such as virginial births, coming back to life after dying and peforming miracles not too bizare a belief. What got my interest though was that one of the audience members said to an ex member of the Branch Davidians asked whether the leader David Koresh sexually abused children at the branch.

The member denied this but others of the "scientific" community said that one of the signs of a cult as compared to a religion was the sexual abuse that was endemic within cults which had such charesmatic leaders that the followers did whatever he said due to brain washing techniques as well as the cult of personality.

This seemed to be a big difference between living your life by a set of defined values (as Christians, Jews and Muslims supposedly do) whilst cult members didn't.

 There wasn't any mention of the numerous cases of sexual abuses, pedophilia, cover ups and criminal cases over the years that have been engrained in "old religons" since their conception. We have just experience a major Catholic cover up over its treatment of pedophile priests which led all the way up to the ex Nazi Youth Pope.

Court case after case in Ireland has shown the Catholic Church to be one of the biggest organised pedophole rings in the world - and one of the most well funded and protected. The same sort of sexual abuse has been endemic in Chrisitian history for a long time.

Why a man of breeding age would willingly chose abstinence and the company of little boys over a normal life seems obvious to me but in these times where phychology would give more than one answer it seems like an old excuse to hide ones sexual pedidocs from the community at large.

Islam has always had its critics from those who called the original "cult leader" Mohammed certain terms for the age of some of his wives. However in some states of America where the age in some states it's 18 you might call the Spannish strange for having an age of consent of only 13 and other European countries from 13, 14 up to 18. Even in some places in Africa and Asia is not uncommon for child weddings where an old man takes a 12 year old as a wife. From Wikipedia:

Traditionally, across the world, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man. In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty. The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years:

In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age. In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7.

There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.

And then there is the Jewish Talmud, the book of laws made by Rabbis that is full of teachings that allow Rabbis to have sex with girls of extremley young ages or not consider rape illegal if the man was a rabbi.

These Talmudic laws have been known for a long time but are not unique for an age in which rape wasn't even considered a crime. Even in England raping your wife wasn't considered a crime until back in 1990. So sexual behaviour cannot be considered a sign of cultish behaviour.

However when a science fiction writer claims that "the best way to make a million dollars is to start a religion" and then goes on to do exactly that. Charging people thousands of dollars for learning it's many steps up to the big reveal, the "ultimate secret" one that wouldn't be out of place in any science fiction book:

Scientologists believe that 75 million years ago an evil galactic ruler, named Xenu, solved overpopulation by bringing trillions of people to Earth in DC-8 space planes, stacking them around volcanoes and nuking them. Then the souls of these dead space aliens were captured and boxed up and taken to cinemas where they were shown films of what life should be like, false ideas containing God, the devil and Christ and told to get ill. After that they supposedly clustered together and now inhabit our bodies. Scientologists believe that if they rid themselves of these body thetans then they will be healthier and will gain special powers like mind-over-matter.

People who try to leave are harrassed, treated as traitors and have even had to face legal cases over their revelations of the "big secret" that people like Tom Cruise and John Travolata pay up to $500,000 for this top secret information.

No wonder the Church of Scientology wants to keeps it's big secret secret! 

So there seems to be clear cases of made up religions that can be called cults, in which the aim of the organisation is to extract money from the member instead of a pay if you want to bag of donations passed around a Church on a Sunday morning.

However it seems that if one were to go back to the start of each off shoot of the Abrahamic faith with today's knowledge and science each new religion could easily fail into the class of a cult.

In my mind it is up to you what you want to believe but mocking anothers belief using claims that could easily fit your own brand of spiritual belief is stretching rationality at least a little.

When the definition of what is a religion and a cult are so indistinguisable from each other then maybe members of either grouping should stop to consider their beliefs before slagging off their opponents.

I'm right because my religious book says so therefore you must all be wrong is not a logical argument that standa up too long at all.

Should a Human Rights Court be the arch enemy of the UK?

By Dark Politricks

Just a short one today related to something that I read in a paper by a famous British controversial comedian Frankie Boyle.

It's about the current furore over the European Court of Human Rights and the extradition of Abu Qatada to Jordan where he will probably be tortured - not that most UK citizens care if he was.

"When your arch enemy is a court of human rights it might be time to take a deep breath and think for a moment what that makes you" - Frankie Boyle

A nice thought provoking quote I thought.

Will the arrest of Bahraini protester Nabeel Rajab bring the mainstream back to the news?

By Dark Politricks

As you will know if you watch Russia Today or Julian Assanges's show "The World Tomorrow", his guest tomorrow is Nabeel Rajab a prominent human rights activist and has been heavily involved in the pro-democracy uprisings in Bahrain which have been largely ignored by the West.

His arrest came after a press release by WikiLeaks which said that both he and Alaa Abd El-Fattah an Eygpitian activist would be starring on the latest episode of "The World Tomorrow", the interview show hosted by Julian Assange on Russia Today (a KGB Front as some commentators and newspapers have called it).

I would not expect to get any critical analysis of Russian problems and politics from Russia Today just like I wouldn't expect much criticism of conservatism and right wing politics from FOX News.

However as a lot of the programming on Russia Today is from Washington and Europe and includes outspoken journalists and front men like Max Keiser an ex Wall St stockbroker who now revels in telling the world all the secrets of how Goldman Sachs and co use illicit and immoral methods to make money through their ponzi schemes.

This includes scoops and interviews with people investigating the massive financial fraud being played on the masses right now from front running to high frequency trading and even going as far as using their massive lobbying power to change the law retrospectively to ensure they are not charged when caught breaking it.

However it is clear from the arrest of Nabeel Rajab on his return from Lebanon at the Bahraini International Airport by Bahrani authorities, that the Bahrani state does not want it's dirty secrets laundered in public. It is also clear that they see Julian Assanges show as a threat to their special status as "untouchable" Western allies who can do no wrong.

Maryam al-Khawaja, another Bahraini human rights defender said she and Rajab were discussing the possibility of his arrest as they left Beirut from their Twitter account knowing that the troubles in Bahrain were escalating.

As I said only last week when the Formula One was held in Bahrain. It seems that the only Human Rights that the West cares or wants to know about are from countries they already have foreign policy problems with such as Syria or Libya.

When it come to allies or countries that are homes to US military bases such as Saudi Arabi and Bahrain then we seem to skip over these countries as if they were inconsequential or irrelevant when it comes to the wider uprisings across the Middle East.

Maybe it's because these countries are already part of the global empire and under our control that we tend to ignore them in our news, papers and TV shows whilst constantly reminding the world how awful it is in Syria and what a good job we did in Libya a country that is now a mess. A haven for terrorists and led by ex al-Qaeda terrorists, a mishmash of competing tribal gangs enforcing Sharia law and shooting it out for supremacy. Yes we did a great job there.

Bahrain is obviously one of these countries that the West choose to ignore and whilst we attack Russia for supporting Syria due to its arms contracts and naval base we are blind to the hypocrisy of our own naval bases and massive arms deals to authoritarian regimes. If we remember Saudi Arabia helped crush the Bahraini revolt last year and they did it all with Western made tanks, guns and bullets.

Now that Formula one has left Bahrain the 24 hour news channels in the UK have been silent on the Bahraini uprisings. Hopefully if one of these news channels has the balls to do so, the arrest of a prominent human rights activist such as Nabeel Rajab can bring the Bahraini uprisings back to the mainstream.

I don't hold out much hope though. The whole world saw how the USA treats human rights when it clashes with big business and the people they owe money to. When the blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng escaped house arrest, traveled hundreds of miles, crossed rivers and rocky terrain and managed to gain refuge in the US embassy to ask for help - how did the USA treat him?

Instead off  standing up for our "commitment to liberty and freedom" we decided to throw him back out to the Chinese wolves whilst Hilary Clinton preferred to use meaningless words than real deeds when mentioning human rights in her speech to the Chinese.

God knows what is happening to him and his family now as he is back in the hands of Chinese authoritarians who have installed spy cameras in his house and electric fences around it to prevent him escaping again. Why they just didn't execute him and remove his organs like they do with so many other prisoners is a question only they can answer.

Anyway I do hope Nabeel Rajab's arrest and his interview on The World Tomorrow with Julian Assange will bring the fate of those striving for change in Bahrain back into the mainstream news.

You can view all the previous interview shows either on my site under this link: darkpolitricks.com/tag/the-world-tomorrow/

Or at the official Russia Today "The World Tomorrow" webpage: http://rt.com/tags/the-world-tomorrow/ 

You can also view all the news about the show that has been reported by Russia Today since it started. From being called  a "useful idiot" by an ex partner in his document release to a KGB stooge for working with Russia Today the show has caused massive controversy in the west for the guests he has has already interviewed and he has been forthright about the controversy this would cause which you can watch here.


Episode one: He was heavily criticized for interviewing the leader of Hezbollah: Hassan Nasrallah

Episode two: Left and Right in the 21st century in which he interviews Slavoj Zizek, a Slovenian sociologist, philosopher and former anti-communist dissident, who turned communist and David Horowitz a radical right-wing Zionist, who used to be a left-wing fundraiser for the Black Panther Party.

Episode three: An interview with the first pro-revolution President of Tunisia Moncef Marzouki in which he talks about human rights and the future direction of the country as well as the past including torture and the USA's double standards when it comes to Human Rights and the Arab Spring.


Episode 1: Hassan Nasrallah


 

Episode 2:  Slavoj Zizek and David Horowitz


 

Episode 3: Moncef Marzouki


 

Episode 4: Nabeel Rajab and Moncef Marzouki


 

Episode 5:  Surviving Guantanamo Bay

 

Remember that you can view all the previous and hopefully future "The World Tomorrow" interview shows either on my main site www.darkpolitricks.com site under this link: www.darkpolitricks.com/tag/the-world-tomorrow/ or at the official Russia Today "The World Tomorrow" webpage: http://rt.com/tags/the-world-tomorrow/.                                                                                                                                      

You can view Julian Assanges offical Youtube.com channel for The World Tomorrow here.

Should faith schools be banned due to their effect on kids brains?

By Dark Politricks

I have just watched the "Big Questions" on BBC1 which you can watch in a few hours on BBC iPlayer and there are ways to watch it from abroad if you are technical enough or know what a proxy server is.

However the show was about religion and mainly about whether Religion was good for Children. This included faith schools and how child's brains are formed and can be indoctrinated during their younger years into religion. The debate was full of humanists, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Rabbi's.

Whilst there is no doubt that in this country at least which has a long history the Christian religion has brought many good things as well as bad things to the overall culture of the country such as original schooling, charitable foundations and people who were moral Christians who went out into the slums to help the poor because of their faith.

However we now live in a multicultural society and "the age of reason" where faith schools are allowed to exist which can create their admission policy around the students religious background. You can help change this by signing this petition.

We have had stories over the years of the Saudi Arabian supported schools that undercover reporters found were teaching things about defamatory things about Jews and Christians and much more.

In my belief faith schools are a bad thing as they teach separation on the lines of indoctrination.

Kids at the age they go to school are likely to follow the beliefs and actions of their parents. 

If their parents are religious they are likely to unquestionably follow their parents including religion and going to a faith school will re-inforce that belief. They are also less likely to mix with children from outside their faith as friendships are formed within school at that age.

As we know from Northern Ireland and the Protestant and Catholic schooling systems that helped keep the country divided for years schools can be the places where child's philosophies on life are formed (which is why many religious people take their children out of State schools to home teach as they believe they are too liberal).

For some children the school is the only place they receive any kind of mental stimulation or moral grounding as some parents are just too busy working all the time to pay for food, mortgages, clothes and other things that keep them alive.

Whilst many parent are not like that I have seen personally many children at the age of 5 that you can just tell are going to end up in prison as their parents only talk to them when they shout at them to tell them to shut up or sit down as they are too busy watching TV to play with them.

Therefore schools can be very important places and for some kids they are the only place they receive any kind of information, life skills and for some abused children any form of kindness and even love.

We all know from the statistics that many Church of England or Catholic schools in the UK have some of the top grades in the country for state schools which is why so many parents try to get their kids into them whether they are religious or not.

This is more a damming indictment on our state school system that a sign that faith schools provide a better education and moral grounding.

Our state schools are a mess and I personally can attest to that after being to one and it is through pure luck and my own brain that I didn't end up in prison like so many others of my peer group.

Through my own thirst for knowledge I went out and taught myself what I now know in this world through reading books many of which were religious (e.g history of religion(s)), studying philosophy and then when the Internet arrived I probably learned more in a couple years of surfing the web than I did in the whole of my state secondary school education.

In places in Southern states of America where religion is supposedly so strong, schools are evangelically christian by nature and children hold "purity rings" to show they won't have sex until they are married as they are taught by their Christian religion they have some of the highest levels of teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, anal sex and other signs that the kids are breaking the rules or bending the indoctrination to fit in their hormones.

At the time of their life when the urge to have sex suddenly arrives but a moral code forced on them forbids it - what happens? They try to "bend the rules" and end up having anal or oral sex as they see it as not having "real" sex as it doesn't lead to pro-creation.

As many religious people on all sides claim, morals are linked to religion and without their religion they wouldn't have a moral grounding. This really annoys humanists and atheists as it signifies that moral behaviour is somehow only available to followers of a certain belief system.

Obviously this is hogwash as not only would it mean that without the religious belief the person would become a murdering, raping, lunatic which is plainly crazy but it would mean that all the millions of people who are not followers of a religion would be non-moral unethical walking anti-christs.

Humanists do what is right because it is right not because an old book or myth handed down Chinese whisper style before it could be written down says so.

What I found interesting from the debate was what one person said about linking a moral code to a belief system, as many religions do. That when, as many do, people leave the religion they are likely to leave the moral code behind as well because the two have become so intrinsically linked together in that persons mind.

In this scenario the person might engage in immoral behaviour to spite the religious teachings they had forced upon them, which might be the root cause of this belief of religion equals  morals.

This could be the "lack of morals" that some religious people see when they talk about the lack of morals in humanists and atheists but it but it is also a good reason why ethics and morals should be taught on their own right at school without any linkage to religion at all. People should be taught that doing good things is good for their own sake not because Jesus or Mohammed said it was good.

Good ethics and morals are something I cannot ever remember being taught at school and it should be a parents jobs to teach right from wrong without indoctrinating the child into a belief system anyway.

The school however should realise that in this day and age, when riots are occurring around the land and the economy is collapsing and whole estates are no-go areas for the Police that they should be a backstop in case of these missing "home lessons" that undoubtedly so many kids today don't get at all.

I remember my own Religious Education lessons at school and they were just a time for winding up our very religious (Christian obviously) teacher.

I remember one lesson trying to be the critical and questioning child that we should all want our children to be and on the subject of heaven I asked "what happens in heaven".

The teacher replied that in heaven we were all given jobs to do by God and went around working for him. I replied that it all sounded very boring and I didn't really want to go to heaven if that was all that happened and that hell sounded a lot more exciting. I was sent out of the lesson in disgrace - no questioning my indoctrination in this class please.

As a book writer on the subject talked about on the show, at the age we are at school our brains are forming and in the "questioning, critical analysis" stage which should be nurtured not stubbed out through indoctrination and blanket yes/no answers to big questions that kids want to know at that age.

Questions we still ask such as "where did I come from" , "why are we here" and "what is the meaning of life and does there even need to be one". 

These are all questions that some of us are still trying to find the answer for but through reason, science and logic not fairy tales and ancient stories.

At that time in our lives we undoubtedly live in a mystical age where we are likely to believe anything we are told. This is the reason we believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and read books about magicians, dragons and other Harry Potter style fantasies.

However we all grow up and whilst the myth of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy were dispelled by me either sleepily catching my parents filling my stocking or being told at school at a young age it was all a myth the religious myths continued.

The main reason I suppose was that older people, people in authority were still believing these religious stories and as a child it is hard to disagree with authority (for some at least) when they tell you black is black or God exists. Case closed.

In my opinion, and I cannot see how we could do this unless we banned faith schools, banned home schooling and then countered any home time indoctrination by teaching ethics, morals, philosophy, psychology, sociology and even religion from a historical and cultural point of view. At least this way we ensure our kids get some useful knowledge from the time they spend at school as well as a moral grounding that might be missing at home in all in a non religious way.

Of course if we taught these lessons instead of the mundane and boring lessons that I can remember from my state school education it might even help solve the problem we currently have of parents feeling guilty by not being able to pay for their child to go to a private school and replace the loss of Grammar schools for the clever kids that have to suffer state school teaching. We must churn out those drug dealers and factory line workers...

It would raise state education standards for all pupils and also give our kids a grounding in morals and ethics that are not linked to any belief system they might discard later in life.

I am not against people choosing to believe in religion or the Flying Spaghetti Momster in the sky if they are old enough to make their own decisions.

I am however against children being indoctrinated into any religion at an early and particularly susceptible age in your life.

I am also against little boys and in some regions of the world girls being genitally mutilated by being circumcised when they are too young to make their own decision. Something that would be considered child abuse in any other context.

Remember it is not about religion it is about teaching right from wrong. And neither are linked to the story of Abraham and the 3 faiths that flowed from that story and make up the majority of religious believers today - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

As Ghandi famously said: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"