To be continued soon, honest.
I'm finding 'Full Spectrum Dominance' quite a a topic - there is far more than only the 'Information Operations' that has been the main focus in the 'fight the net' articles. There are a few particular questions that I want to address like does it represent a 'new world order' whereby the rest of the World is held in a form of slavery to US and whether it extends to involvement in serious crimes. All of this is taking a little longer than I expected so I thought I would try to bring you this article one 'piece' at a time. It will be expanded.
Full Spectrum Dominance extends to dominating the media, including the alternative media of the internet. On this very blog the issue of Depleted Uranium genocide was raised. The UK has taken part in Depleted Uranium genocide as well as US. Since the article was published, the photos on this blog have been censored and search engines are returning far fewer results for depleted uranium babies. Many bloggers and researchers are well aware that search engine results are manipulated by the Fascists. Clearly the Fascists do not want you to know that thay have been committing genetic genocide. Controlling search engine results through censorship would clearly fall within the remit of Full Spectrum Dominance.
The anti-war, anti-Blair political activist known as deep has been - and possibly continues to be - treated as a suspected terrorist by the Fascist UK state as a result of his legitimate and vocal political opposition to war, Blair & Co and the Labour party. deep published in NNTP newsgroups and repeatedly gave Blair & Co a damn good kicking.
Many of deep's NNTP posts have been censored, particularly from mid July 2005 following the G8 demonstrations of early July, the London explosions of 7 July and the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July 2005. I believe that Jean Charles de Menezes was killed having been mistakenly identified as deep. Since deep was treated as a suspected terrorist, it is reasonable that claims were made that a suspected terrorist was killed if this had happened.
I don't have a copy of all deep's posts but I can certainly remember a few of them that have been censored but first off I'll start with one that I can prove has been censored. I have reproduced this below (click on 'show quoted text').
| From: |
| S. O. Damocles - view profile | | Date: |
| Fri, Oct 15 2004 11:29 am | | Email: |
| "S. O. Damocles" ...@damocl.es> | | Groups: |
| alt.military.uk, alt.politics.bush, aus.politics, can.politics, misc.legal, scot.politics, soc.culture.iraq, uk.politics.misc, uk.politics.parliament, us.politics |
socialist wrote:
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com
> ***
> Who do you think you are kidding Mr. Bliar?
> If you think we're all that dumb
> We are the boys that will stop your little game
> We are the boys that will make you think again
> 'Cause who do you think you are kidding Mr. Bliar
> If you think we're all that dumb?
> Liar, War Criminal and Dubya's sycophant Tony Blair will
> face a general election between November 2004 and June
> 2006. We all know that he lied to the British parliament
> and public to pursue Dubya's illegal, unnecessary and
> unprovoked war against Iraq, against UK interests and
> against the clearly stated opinion of the UK population and
> has thereby hugely increased the threat of terrorism in the
> UK and the world.
> Imagine if we could really vote Bliar out at the next
> general election, if a strong anti-Bliar candidate stood at
> Bliar's Sedgfield constituency and the main parties did not
> contest him/her. That would certainly concentrate the
> public's mind on getting rid of this evil tyrrant. Who
> knows, we
> might even finally get to lock him up for his war crimes
> and treason.
> -----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News > =----- http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service > in the World! -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - > Unlimited Download! =-----
What you have here is a reply to one of deep's censored posts (deep used different nicks, but mainly socialist) with deep's original text included. What is the relevence of deep's words and why would they want it censored?
1. deep posted the message that is quoted above on or before 15 October 2004.
2. Jean Charles de Menezes is killed on 22 July 2005.
3. Ian Blair's asks in his Dimbleby lecture on 16 November 2005 "Where are the discussions, where is, outside the walls of police headquarters and among a handful of journalists, even the wish to know about the firearms and ammunition we use, about how the police deal with kidnaps in action, with explosive entry into the strongholds of armed criminals, with real time threats to life from criminal gangs?" Blair also says in his speech "informed commentary on policing is piecemeal" and I have picked up on the deeper meaning of some phrases - some of the pieces - in his speech to show that deep's name is released by Ian Blair in the context of terrorism i.e. that he appears to be inciting deep's murder.
The speech is released to the press before the event (this often happens to help the press and ensure coverage).
4. The corporate media obliges by following Ian Blair's hint and inquires and publishes about the ammunition used in killing Jean Charles de Menezes. It is reported on 16 November that Jean Charles de Menezes was killed using dum-dum bullets.
Which raises the question Why did Ian Blair want that information introduced into the public domain?
[I was searching for information on the weapons used the other day. Does anyone have any info?]
26 Oct 2006
I'm wondering whether I'm going off track a little. After all, Full Spectrum Dominance is a US military doctrine. Is it appropriate to discuss UK events i.e. events that are probably not directed by the US?
Full Spectrum Dominance is a global strategy and states subservient to the US are expected to pursue their master's strategy even though it is diammetrically opposed to their own nation's interests. While these actions may be UK actions, thay are in pursuit of the same objective and complement US actions, UK is responsible for applying Full Spectrum Dominance in UK.
I have often wondered whether Full Spectrum Dominance evolved from Blair's New Labour electoral strategy since it has many similarities and Blair's team were involved in Clinton's election campaign.
What role does the BBC play is Full Spectrum Dominance?
BBC Governors Agreement 8. DEFENCE AND EMERGENCY ARRANGEMENTS 8.1 The Corporation shall, whenever so requested by any Minister of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and at the Corporation's own expense, broadcast or transmit from all or any of the stations any announcement (with a visual image of any picture or object mentioned in the announcement if it is a television transmission) which such
Minister may request the Corporation to broadcast or transmit; and shall also, whenever so requested by any such Minister in whose opinion an emergency has arisen or continues, at
the like expense broadcast or transmit as aforesaid any other matter which such Minister may request the Corporation to broadcast or transmit, provided that the Corporation when sending such an announcement or other matter may at its discretion announce or refrain from announcing that it is sent at the request of a named Minister.
8.2 The Secretary of State may from time to time by notice in writing require the Corporation to refrain at any specified time or at all times from broadcasting or transmitting any matter or
matter of any class specified in such notice; and the Secretary of State may at any time or times vary or revoke any such notice. The Corporation may at its discretion announce or
refrain from announcing that such a notice has been given or has been varied or revoked.
8.3 If and whenever in the opinion of the Secretary of State an emergency shall have arisen in which it is expedient in the public interest that Her Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom shall have control over the broadcasting or transmission of any matter whatsoever by means of the stations or any of them, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to direct
and cause the stations or any of them or any part thereof to be taken possession of in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty and to prevent the Corporation from using them, and also
to cause the stations or any of them or any part thereof to be used for Her Majesty's service, or to take such other steps as he may think fit to secure control over the stations or any of
them, and in that event any person authorised by the Secretary of State may enter upon the stations or any of them and the offices and works of the Corporation or any of them and take
possession thereof and use the same as aforesaid.
8.4 If and whenever the Secretary of State shall exercise the powers conferred on him by subclause 8.3 the Corporation shall be entitled to receive from the Secretary of State -
(a) compensation for any damage done to any property of the Corporation, being damage directly attributable to the exercise of any such powers; and
(b) such sums as are required to defray any expenses which, regard being had to the nature of the emergency, have been properly and necessarily
incurred by the Corporation and for meeting which revenue is by reason of the exercise of such powers not otherwise available to the Corporation.
8.5 All existing arrangements between the Corporation and the relevant Government Departments relating to certain defence works and national emergencies (as such
arrangements may be varied from time to time) shall continue in force during the continuance of this Deed.
8.6 No person acting on the Corporation's behalf or by its permission shall or shall be permitted or suffered by the Corporation to divulge to any person (other than a properly
authorised official of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or a competent legal tribunal), or make any use whatever of, any matter coming to his knowledge as a result of
unintended reception by means of the stations or any of them or any of the Corporation's apparatus for wireless telegraphy or telecommunication systems.
What this means is something like
8.1 Any minister can insist that the BBC publishes or broadcasts any story as long as that minister thinks that there is a crisis.
8.2 The Secretary of State (Home Secretary John Reid)can order the BBC to publish or broadcast or not to publish or broadcast anything.
8.3 If the Secretary of State (Home Secretary John Reid) believes that "an emergency has arisen" the BBC is totally controlled by the government.
8.4 expenses.
8.5 There are other agreements between the BBC and government about defence and notional security which continue.
8.6 BBC workers must keep quiet about the exercise of any of these measures.
All this puts the UK government in a position whereby the BBC can be used for misdirection and psyops purposes. It is certainly worth realising that the BBC is under these and further constraints when interpreting any of their output. BBC staff are in many ways constrained like other media workers who must follow editorial policy and guidelines - it's just that their editor is Fascist John Reid.
Crypto-Fascism anyone? New Labour are accused of Crypto-Fascism - that they are Fascists pretending to be democratic politicians - because they engage in lies and deceptions. Jack Straw will be fully aware of these regulations since he has been Home Secretary and will have used them. What are we to make of this bullshit then?
But Mr Straw said "independence of journalism" was one the BBC's strengths and it must not be directly influenced, "particularly" by ministers or MPs. [BBC source]
12 November 2006
Looks like Guy Kewney has written an article on Full Spectrum Dominance.
Imagine that you have an unfortunate trend in
your thinking. Imagine that you find yourself following a train of
thought which matches a sequence which has been seen before among
enemies of the Government.
“Great!” you say. “This means that
the enforcement people can actually anticipate terrorist acts? Spot
potential terrorists before they even realise they’re on the path to
mayhem?”
No. Not terrorists, just enemies. Hostile journalists,
campaigning lobbyists, critical journalists, businessmen who are likely
to sponsor rival parties, people who oppose the party leader’s
favourite idea of the year.
You, yourself, possibly don’t realise where you’re heading. They do. They can now take action, as appropriate.
Appropriate
action? Well, they could, of course, target you for a hearts and minds
educational campaign so that you see things from a better point of
view. Or it could be hostility: arrange a Customs or VAT inspection, or
start a smear campaign, or search aggressively for accounting
irregularities.
All based on guilt by association. They may not
know exactly what is in your heart. But they know who you associate
with, and what other people are doing who went down that path. All that
is an open book to someone with access to all your email, all your
search queries, all the sites you visited, all the phone calls you
made, all the books you bought or ordered from the library. “People who
read this, also bought…” ...
I think that the UK and US governments in the
last 10 years have shown, unambiguously, that any sort of protest,
disagreement, or criticism of government is something they feel they
can legitimately suppress.
If they can detect protest,
disagreement, or criticism before the critic reaches the point of
taking effective action, they can do so without anybody noticing. If
they could have caught Brian Haw before he set up in the square in
front of Parliament, how much less embarrassing it would have been!
Would they do something like that?
Frankly,
anybody who can actually pass a law saying you can’t open a newspaper
with a critical article about the government outside Parliament, would
- in my opinion - do just about anything. They believe that what they
are doing is RIGHT and anybody who opposes them is BAD. Why would they
not try to stop us?
The genie, unfortunately, is out of the bottle.
I can assure you from personal exerience that they would do it ... and what's more the Fascist cowards that are New Labour will do it while hiding.
|
