TerrorStorm includes a fair slab of material relating to 7/7, 21/7 and the Stockwell shooting but that material is riddled with annoying little inaccuracies, so personally I haven’t recommended it to anyone.
But there’s this one section, the part that I’ve put up, which is absolutely priceless. Jones is interviewing a woman who runs a stall outside Stockwell tube station, a few days after Jean Charles de Menezes got shot...
"I don’t know. It is a lot of times to shoot him"In less than 90 seconds she manages to regurgitate and encapsulate every single piece of bullshit that was put out by the police, government and the media immediately after the shooting. Virtually everything she says is untrue. She then finishes her turn with the finest example of Orwellian doublethink I have ever been privileged to witness….
"I think people should give up their Liberty for Freedom..."If democracy means people like this get a vote something is very wrong with democracy. Or very right, depending on where you’re coming from.
.
7 comments:
You have a very good point there. It is only a democracy if the people are properly informed and can influence the decisions. By my definition, there are no democratic states on earth.
I used to think of Switzerland as a democracy, but there is some media spin even there (but quite a bit less then in Germany or the UK).
Yup
Constitutions are supposed to help, but they are not much help if...
- your country doesn't have one
- the constitution is drafted by dicks
- governments can get away with ignoring them
In the UK we have a curious blend of all three
Democracy is tyranny.
Voting is Madness
I want freedom from people like her.
Does that make me a snob or just sane?
See Lysander Spooner.
@wolfie
I want freedom from people like her. Does that make me a snob or just sane?
Probably a bit of both ;) and that kind of freedom is becoming harder and harder to attain
@anon & richard - thanks for the leads - I enjoyed reading up on both.
Lysander Spooner ... zany name, zany guy...
Though denouncing its embrace of slavery, Spooner sided with the Confederate States of America's right to secede on the basis that they were choosing to exercise government by consent — a fundamental constitutional and legal principle to Spooner's philosophy. The North, by contrast, was trying to deny the Southerners their inherent right to be governed by their consent. He believed they were attempting to coerce the obedience of the southern states to a union they did not wish to enter. He believed that Compensated Emancipation was a preferable way to end slavery, something many nations had done. He argued that the right for states to secede derives from the same right of the slaves to be free. This argument was not popular in the North or South once the war started, as it was contrary to the government positions held on both sides.
what a hero
Post a Comment