We sold the Tree of Liberty for beads, trinkets and individually-wrapped snacks

There's a great article in the NY Times about those Americans who did not support the American Revolution in 1776. The author's guess is that around 20% of the population did not support the revolution. It should not be surprising; people are rarely in harmonious, unanimous agreement about... anything. But it's worth bearing in mind.

During three days in November 1776, this petition sat in Scott’s Tavern, on Wall Street, to be signed by anyone who wished. A frank declaration of dependence, it completely lacks the revolutionary genius and rhetorical grace of our hallowed July 4 document. Yet in all, more than 700 people put their names to the parchment — 12 times the number who signed the Declaration of Independence. Among the signatories were pillars of New York society: wealthy merchants like Hugh Wallace, who commanded vast tracts of land and capital; members of some of New York’s most prominent families, the DeLanceys, the Livingstons and the Philipses; and the clergymen Charles Inglis and Samuel Seabury, who published articulate rebuttals to rebel pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.”

I'm probably the only person on the planet who thinks the American Revolution was ultimately a failure.... because we were reconquered by the British a hundred years ago. Notice that the petition was situated on Wall Street. Well, some things haven't changed. Wall Street was then and is now, home to the "Royalists", if you will. The "moneyed interests" were defeated in 1776, but the wealth and power Britain wielded was immense. In time, Britain was able to get a toehold in her former colony using that most diabolic of weapons: Money. As a young nation we were starved for it and didn't really care where it came from.

A certain class formed, primarily on the east coast, right around New York (the "Empire State"), whose allegiance was to power; not America. I suppose it wasn't the British reconquering us so much as the old guard reasserting its power against a young upstart.

Still, the British connection is worth looking into. Why do we care about the Queen or Princess Diana? Wall Street is associated with the CIA, and the CIA is closely tied with MI6. Our intelligence apparatus is intrinsically bound with that of Britain and her other wayward colony, Australia. The UK/USA axis is currently the strongest in the world. It does seem a bit odd that our closest ally (in Iraq and other places) is our old colonial master, doesn't it? I suppose after WWII some old wounds were forgotten (or forgiven, anyway). But it is curious that we have such enmity in this country for France, the nation that gave us the Statue of Liberty and helped us fight against the British.

Here we are, in a nation that is clearly ruled for the rich, by the rich. Are we independent from the British? Perhaps, but what does it matter if we're not independent of tyranny? A new tyranny rules these lands, and it's called crypto-fascism. We wouldn't be much better off under the thumb of the British police state. Freedom seems to slip away over time, as cowards have their say and convenience trumps idealism time and time again. It's true what Jefferson said:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

But the hard part, as always, is figuring out who's a patriot and who's a tyrant. I can give you a few hints, though: In a hierarchical society whose class system is based on accumulated wealth the poor folks certainly do not have a chance to be tyrants, whereas those sitting at the top of the pyramid might behave like aristocrats without even realizing it.

Let's hope Thomas Jefferson doesn't rise from the dead anytime soon. We'll feel like the Native American tribes who sold vast tracts of land for nothing more than beads, trinkets and gunpowder. I doubt Jefferson will be nearly as impressed with our high-definition TVs as we might be.

"You exchanged your God-given Freedom for WHAT?!!" he'll say.

"Hey, c'mon -- these beads are really shiny!"

Boycott the BBC! "Cock-up" Reveals Pre-Knowledge of WTC 7 Collapse, but Damage Control Afterwards Points to Conspiracy

The BBC has been in the middle of a blogger firestorm the last couple days after clear and incontrovertible evidence appeared, showing that the Beeb had reported the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building -- better known as World Trade Center 7 -- before it actually collapsed! Check out the screen grab below (I've circled WTC7):

The BBC engaged in some quick (and pathetic) damage control but failed to calm the boiling outrage erupting around the world. In so doing they revealed that they've lost all of their tapes from 9/11 and doefully ask somebody to send them a copy, plz. (I'm not fucking kidding. Check the link):

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it.

I don't even know where to begin.

Okay, Beeb... so you're telling me that nobody fucking bothered to save or secure any of the tapes from an entire day of broadcasting -- a day that, even for the Brits, would have to rank as one of the most important in a generation at least, and then you meekly ask for a copy as if it's our job?! What the hell?! Then you claim incompetence (just like the Bush regime)?! Well, your excuse is so fucking pathetic I'm inclined to agree that you are a bunch of morons.

Do you believe them? I don't. This is bullshit. I'm starting to think that the BBC, and all the other major news organs, are in fact part of the conspiracy -- after the fact.

So how did the Beeb get the news that the WTC7 building was about to collapse? Well, that certainly could be fairly innocent on their part. If a "trusted source" informed them of the collapse, they would be inclined to report it, and not bothering to check and see that the building is still standing does reek of incompetence. However, they seem quite competent at getting videos removed from YouTube and GoogleVideo. Strange for a news organization that was supposedly trying to get their tapes back.

I managed to find a clip on YouTube that hasn't been taken down yet. It's got a full 25 minutes of the BBC's feed from 9/11, so you'll have to fast forward ahead to the 15 minute mark to see the footage in question.



So, this could be an isolated incident, right? A fluke bout of premonition by a major media outlet that is unique in the pages of history? Not quite.

CNN did the same damn thing. In fact, the footage of WTC7 is even better in the CNN version and you can see that the building is not really on fire. There's plenty of smoke around it, but most of it appears to be coming from the wreckage of the two towers. Reporter Aaron Brown at least seems vaguely aware that the building is still standing, but he clearly mentions a collapse that either has occurred or is about to occur.



What are we to make of all this? Well, I think that's pretty obvious. The corporate-controlled media is lying to us. Every day, with every breath, and every death in Iraq or from the growing numbers of dead or dying first responders... they're lying to us. They know which way the evidence points, and they're doing everything they can to cover it up. After the BBC's litany of pathetic excuses they had the gall to mock those of us who question the official story:

If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

So they're not only mocking those of us genuinely concerned about the events of 9/11 (if we don't learn what really happened, how can we prevent another one?), they've sunken so low they're using a Bush regime apologist's anonymous comments on YouTube to make their case. FUCKING PATHETIC.

What's even more intriguing is how the BBC flak, Richard Porter, seems more interested in carrying water for the Bush regime than he does in showing his news organization as a competent and trustworthy news source. In fact, he goes out of his way to make the BBC appear utterly incompetent -- no doubt because it helps the Bush regime with their own claims of incompetence rather than malfeasance. Instead of acknowledging legitimate questions about that fateful day he does all he can to back up the official story (which, by the way, is a conspiracy theory no matter how you slice it). I say again: FUCKING PATHETIC.

That's it. You're done, Beeb. I had you in my bookmarks, but you're gone now. You're fucking gone. You are nothing more than an agent of evil to me now. I will give you the same amount of trust I give the Bush regime -- less than zero.

I'm calling for a BOYCOTT, folks. We can't let our media LIE to us and get away with it. Going back to them and reading their deception-stained news would be like an abused wife going back to her drunked and violent husband. Enough!

What's the number one thing a news organization is supposed to do? Tell the truth, right? When a news outlet refuses to do that, what good are they? They're about as useful as a knife in the eye. They're about as helpful as gonorrhea.

I'm calling for a boycott until such time as the BBC fires that arrogant, pandering fuckhead, Richard Porter, head editor of world news... AND launches a full and impartial investigation into the tragic events of 9/11 -- giving all theories equal credence until the evidence makes clear which is most likely. And not a trashy hit-piece like that Conspiracy Files piece of shit (which was debunked about 5 minutes after it aired).

It really pains me to do this. The BBC has a lot of quality programming and some of their shows have really hit hard and exposed lies and crimes in government. However, they are tainted meat to me now. I can't eat the rest of it just because it looks okay -- how do I really know? Trust is such a fragile thing, and getting it back after losing it is not easy. Good luck, BBC. I hope you do the right thing.

World Conquest is a Lonely Sport

Tony "Poodle" Blair has decided to pull out of Iraq. Sort of. Eventually.

This more of a big deal symbolically than realistically since Britain only had around 7,000 troops in country anyway (they had around 45,000 for the invasion -- you know, "the fun part").

Hopefully this will cause people in America to scratch their softboiled heads and wonder, "Well, uh, why are we still there? Is the U.K. safe from terrorism now?" You will recall, of course, that the UK/USA alliance was keen to fight the terrorists "over there" rather than "over here." What changed? Was there some anti-terr'rist bust in Iraq that I missed? Did they somehow solve the terrorism problem in the UK? Oh, if only such a solution worked in the US too! Maybe they have perfected some sort of anti-terror aerosol spray. But then, that wouldn't really fit with with the neocon MO, would it? Terror is their bread and butter. They need it to govern. Blair is only doing this because he knows his term is almost up. He obviously plans to declare victory and hope that the public just forgets about the whole thing. Will they forget all of the lies and manipulation and sexing-up of intelligence dossiers? Experience shows they might.

But that won't be so simple in America. We've borne the brunt of this conquest (well, except for the Iraqis, but nobody counting them, right?), and Bush pulled out all the stops to sell this war. Now it looks like we're all alone in this boondoggle.

I don't mean to disparage Kazakhstan's 29 troops. Or the 41 troops Estonia has over there. Truly, a fearsome fighting force. I quake in my boots just thinking about them. And Moldova's troops, all 12 of them, are so incredibly powerful that I think it would be fine if we left them in charge and took our 132,000 troops back home to preside over the president's trial for treason.

But we may have problems doing that since King George is the commander in chief. Still, Congress has certain powers, including the power of the purse strings. Cutting off funds for the war is a harsh and dangerous course.... but so is leaving the troops in Iraq indefinitely. It's time to take a stand, people. If it's a constitutional crisis Bush and neocons want, then that is what they'll get. I think there are enough pissed off Democrats in the House and Senate to make this a very interesting fight. I suspect that much is being played out behind the scenes. The neocons know that it's time for them to leave, but like a drunken and belligerent house guest they are steadfastly resisting all attempts at reason. More drastic actions may be required. (Fun way to get rid is a belligerent houseguest: Tell them their car has been towed. Hopefully they'll be on the front lawn by the time they remember they took the bus. Use this time to lock the door and pull the shades)

I'm ready to take to the streets if necessary to compel the neocons from power. I know my shit don't amount to much, but it's all I got. I wish I could lend more to the struggle. I know there are some people, even in the ruling class, who have had enough of the neocons. I trust that they have a plan to remove them from power... but it sure is taking a long time. I don't know what's playing out behind the scenes, but I can't imagine the neocons have many allies left. Regardless, it's time to end this game. World conquest is not a good way to make friends.