Why Is The BBC So Spineless About Saudi Arabia?

I'm still hopping mad about Zeinab Badawi's disgraceful interview with Mr Assange where she treated him like he was in a military tribunal. If anyone can find a BBC interview where a single tough question is asked of Saudi you will be performing miracles. Why? Because like the British Isles the BBC is gutless when it is told who to suck up to.

The US and the UK are in bed with the most vile and demented religious fundamentalists on Earth while preaching to others about something they are too enslaved to understand. Freedom starts with criticism of power not criticism political prisoners caged in tiny London embassies. Shame on you BBC, Shame on you. Shame on you. And fuck you like you fucked those kids over while making Jimmy Savile tribute programs.

Update: Pat Condell is a Zionist apologist. He may have got it right on Saudi but oh my, he's covered in meconium when it comes to Israel. What a tool.

BBC Blasts The Butcher Of Bangkok

The only reason the BBC blast the former PM of Thailand Abhisit (Mark) Vejjajiva is because the democrats are anti New World Order and Ultra Royalist so the BBC agenda here is to prevent this tosser getting elected again. 

As the BBC and my interests are the same here I'll share the video but it's important to remember that unlike the BBC I don't use people when it suits me without full disclosure. The BBC needs to be broken up and the decent cultural and art parts retained in some manner but the news is all corporate and militarist agenda. The British people shouldn't have to pay a licence fee for lies lies lies lies lies.

As an aside both the Royalists and the Pro Thaksin camps will criticize me because my allegiance is with humanity and not tribal. I know what Thaksin is going to sell off when he returns (the crown jewels?) and I know the censorship that the military gag Thailand with and exploit the Royal Family over.

Was Barack Obama A Pre-Identified President?

Washington State lawyer and Cambridge Philosophy Master Degree graduate Andrew Basiago claims that modern presidents (I think from Carter onwards as George Green claims in this interview) are informed beforehand of their presidency and are then guided by the usual suspects (banks, military, spooks) through a set of experiences to equip them to do the job of serving the bean counters most effectively.

It's fantastic of course but from time to time a piece of concrete information emerges that fits so neatly into the narrative that it brings up the topic fresh again. Listen to the postman above who met Obama as a young man in Chicago. Ignore the partisan bullshit these video makers feel obliged to indulge in. All sides of the political debate are corrupt and serve Wall Street first and foremost.

My scepticism issue with Andrew Basiago is he doesn't have much philosophical to say and even seems somewhat naive. That doesn't mean everything he says isn't true. I wrote about him a bit back here but what interests me lately is every time a piece of information emerges to support his claim. A mainstream media servant does a hit piece on him like Wired Magazine over here and then the latest was on Stephen Colbert and covered by Salon. 

Why would the mainstream media make repeated efforts to discredit him?

If you follow the story there are now two witnesses who back up Andrew Basiago's claims. That doesn't mean they're authenticated, as there is evidence of mind control/MKULTRA in the story if you research the topic, but it isn't so easy to dismiss either.