Where Are the Other 10 Million Panama Papers? 71

When I posted my scepticism that we would be given the full truth about the content of the Panama Papers by the mainstream media outlets who were controlling them, it went viral and became the first individual article to be read by half a million people on this blog alone, and a multiple of that as it was posted all round the web, translated into several languages.

I also attracted some derision from establishment propagandists. I had contended that the fact the papers themselves were not made available, but we were rather fed selected information by the western and corporate state media, would limit and slant what the public was told. The initial concentration on Russia, Iran, Syria etc seemed to confirm this. But it was urged that more was to come, and I should wait, and it was suggested I would look foolish when they finished publishing. “Wait and see” tweeted the editor of the lead newspaper, the Suddeutsche Zeitung, in response to my post.

Well I waited, and what happened? The story fizzled out.

Take the UK. We got the stuff about Putin, Iran and various “baddies”. We got a story about Cameron’s dad that had been public knowledge already for four years. And we got the BBC chasing one bloke who had sold one house in Islington. And that was it.

We learnt that the majority of dodgy companies were registered in British overseas territories. We learnt that the largest number of dodgy lawyers and accountants working with Mossack Fonseca were in the UK. Yet in these millions of documents, not one major British company or individual not already known was implicated. Do we really believe that? And do we really believe the near complete absence of people implicated from the United States?

I have a clue what is going on. A young lady contacted me from Le Monde newspaper. She was one of the journalists working on the Panama Papers. She had been allocated the task of researching a Russian oligarch, and not knowing I had made any comment on the Panama Papers, she contacted me as I had background information on the man. Her email made plain that the “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists” in Washington was closely controlling the process, and that what she wrote would have to go back to them for “checking” before publication. The ICIJ is funded, as I pointed out, by corporate America. Their donors include:

Ford Foundation
Carnegie Endowment
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)

So, in one stroke, the argument that the data was not being controlled because it was “shared with hundreds of journalists around the world” falls. That argument was repeatedly thrown at me but it appears not to be true; hundreds of journalists did not have unfettered access to the entire database or free publication of their findings. It was very much a controlled leak.

Of course I am not claiming there is absolute control. It is a matter of degree. As I pointed out, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation made a documentary which directly implicated and challenged Australia’s biggest company, BHP Billiton, and Australia’s biggest foreign investor. But that only emphasises the problem.

Are we really supposed to believe that in Australia the biggest economic players were involved, but in the UK – where far more lawyers and accountants were implicated – it was just Cameron’s dad and a slightly dodgy geezer in Islington?

The corporate media still claim there are legitimate reasons, apart from avoiding tax and jurisdiction, for using companies like Mossack Fonseca. They will therefore – again contrary to a widespread claim – only be publishing a small minority of the actual documents for the public to search. “The application will not be a ‘data dump’ of the original documents — it will be a careful release of basic corporate information” says the ICIJ. Their words, not mine.

So the fundamental question is, do you trust the corporate media to give you a true picture? By passing the data to the corporate media the leaker has put us back to a pre-WikiLeaks world. My instinct is not to trust them, and the promised revelations that would prove me wrong are yet to appear.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

71 thoughts on “Where Are the Other 10 Million Panama Papers?

1 2
  • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

    For O/T reports about more CIA crimes, read about Abu Omar stating that Sabrina Da Sousa is being scapegoated for his rendition to Egypt for torture in 2003; it was the leadership of the Agency, especially DCI George Tenet, water-boarder-in=-chief Dick Cheney, and the current DCI John Brennan who were responsible, and should be facing trial in Italy.

    When Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh objected to being scapegoated for a similar rendition in Sweden, and started complaining about it, the same Agency scum arranged her assassination by Meir Dagan’s Mossad.

  • DomesticExtremist

    About ten days or so ago, the FBI (iirc) declared that they were going to be investigating the Panama Papers findings. This of course means that references will have to be caveated with the phrase that ‘an FBI investigation is ongoing’ and no media organisation would want to risk prejudicing any future proceedings.

    Since then, silence.

  • bevin

    The matter under discussion, both here and on the other active threads, is the ability of the Establishment to control the ‘news’ and the discussion of information to such an extent that ‘black’ can be firmly established as being white and ‘up’ as down.

    In this case we are dealing with a variation of the ‘memory hole’: we are not required to forget what we were told yesterday but to re-define it. Hence the news that hundreds of independent investigators were beavering away to discover the details buried in this mass of data and to make sense of them is now redefined to mean that the journalists in question are not independent but working for massive and thoroughly compromised institutions committed to the protection of the capitalist system.

    In the case of Ken Livingstone the same rolling re-definitions are at work: everything that he is quoted as saying is completely correct. He is simply repeating facts that can be confirmed easily by consulting the historical record- newspaper reports of speeches made by Stormtrooper leaders at Reichstag and Land elections; translations of opinion pieces written by Hitler and his colleagues in periodicals circulating in Germany, and abroad, during the period in question.
    I don’t doubt that many of Hitler’s apologists in Britain published articles explaining that “Jews are not real Germans and will be much more comfortable among their own kind in Palestine.”

    What is common to both cases of manipulation of public opinion is that they depend upon the public credibility of the media- which everyone understands to be dishonest, biased, cynically reflective of the perceived interests of those who control it and, in general terms, wholly unworthy of any public trust whatever.

    It may be that , with the growth of independent sources of information such as this one, the credibility of, for example Sky, is eroding very rapidly. On the other hand it may be that we are discovering, in a very practical way, that a majority of the population actually enjoys being given opinions to adopt with the comforting certainty that to accede to them is to earn the applause of the powerful and approval from the powers that be.

    It could be argued that what is at stake is reason itself.

    • Tony_0pmoc


      “the public credibility of the media- which everyone understands to be dishonest, biased, cynically reflective of the perceived interests of those who control it and, in general terms, wholly unworthy of any public trust whatever.”

      Unfortunately, the vast majority of people trust and respect the media, and believe almost everything they are fed. This is particularly true of watching television, because the human mind, literally switches to an alpha state, where normal critical analysis (necessary for dealing with the real world) is vastly degraded and almost completely switched off. The mind in front of a TV screen acts like a sponge.

      There is virtually no defence against such incredibly powerful propaganda, except to not watch TV.

      The internet provides some hope, but not much, as that too is highly vulnerable to “silent” propaganda too.

      I found this article about Snowden yesterday very interesting, and it merely confirmed to a large degree what I already suspected. I reckon he is till “on the team”, and that applies I suspect to Assange too.

      Neither of them pass the acid test.

      Basically anyone who receives a great deal of mainstream publicity is there for the purposes of projecting a mass change of thought in the population – even if they are doing so for good intentions, and without the knowledge that they are in effect being used to do so.

      “Mission Accomplished? Snowden ‘NSA Leak’ had ‘chilling effect’ that scared people away from learning truth about terrorism”



      • Dave Lawton


        “Mission Accomplished? Snowden ‘NSA Leak’ had ‘chilling effect’ that scared people away from learning truth about terrorism”

        Scott net has CIA written all over it.You need to look closer to home like Spectrum to find some truth.

    • Republicofscotland


      You just have to look at the Hillsborough Disaster, to see the position of the press, (the fourth estate). They backed the police (the third estate judiciary) all the way over the 27 years.

      As for Ken Livingstone, he foolishly tried to defend the indefensible, with regards to Naz Shah’s comments. To then go on and say Hitler supported Zionism live on the BBC, was stupidity. Is it any wonder he’s been suspended.

      • Tony_0pmoc

        Livingstone only told the truth.

        Why should he have been suspended for that?…though he probably realised he was going to be.

        He actually went considerably up in my estimation.

        I always thought he was a twat.


          • Tony_0pmoc

            I had already posted the response to that, yesterday on the Independent, and I have seen my link, repeated in several places elsewhere including here.

            I try not to repeat myself.

            It is merely an historical document, incidentally maintained by Jewish people.

          • Herbie

            This laughably named Bagehot, you cite, is simply lying.

            Livingston didn’t make the claim Bagehot complains about.

            It’s a straw man.

            It’s not difficult. Really, it isn’t.

            All this antisemitism is invented to a political purpose.

            A defilement of the Holocaust to political purposes.

            Finkelstein has already made this point well.

            Others too:

            “Israeli Minister “We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust” ”

            “Shulamit Aloni, former israeli minister, admits that the holocaust and the “antisemite” accusation are used to manipulate those who criticize zionists.”


          • Martinned

            Yup, all Jews are lying liars who lie. How exactly is this different from xenophobes who quote Quran and Hadith texts to “prove” that all (proper) Muslims have a religious obligation to pursue Jihad and to lie about it?

          • Herbie

            Bagehot is lying, in your article.

            Livingston didn’t claim what Bagehot says he did.

            So, it’s all a political front. A ruse. Like all your other little distractions.

            Shows how little you really care about antisemitism when you demean it with your cheap tricks.

            Shulamit Aloni wasn’t lying:

            “former israeli minister, admits that the holocaust and the “antisemite” accusation are used to manipulate those who criticize zionists.””


        • Republicofscotland


          I don’t about historically accurate, but Ken unfortunately came across as historically insensitive. He was there to try and defend Naz Shah, not let himself get pulled into a war of words over Hitler’s allegiances.

      • bevin

        ” To then go on and say Hitler supported Zionism live on the BBC, was stupidity. Is it any wonder he’s been suspended.”
        What he actually said appears to have been absolutely true. That should be a reason for taking no action against him. It may be inconvenient for the New Labour apparatchiki, deeply committed to telling the lies that others tell, but the relationship between the leader of the German political party in question and representatives of those promoting emigration to Palestine was exactly as Livingstone described it.
        This is confirmed, in part at least, by the proceedings of the case against Adolf Eichmann conducted in Israel. It being established that Eichmann was personally involved in efforts to expel Hungarians to Palestine.
        As for Naz Shah’s comments they have the great merit of highlighting the negative role that the US government played by refusing to admit large numbers of refugees from Germany who attempted to flee across the Atlantic away from what they came to suspect was almost certain death.
        The truth is that we cannot ban people from making statements that do not appeal to our taste without sacrificing the right to say uncomfortable things- hard truths.

  • Republicofscotland

    You’ve nailed it there Craig, the info released by the ICIJ, looks like a pre-planned exercise, as you say, you just have to see the ICIJ’s backers to know that Putin and the Icelandic PM, and a few other low key players, or those that don’t comply with Western rhetoric had their skeletons displayed in public.

    So who’s really controlling the files, is Mossack Fonseca, a front for the CIA? no American mogul or corporation has yet been exposed, nor has, any big hitters from London’s Square Mile.

    Is there any truth, in the claim that 11 million files have been released to the ICIJ? If we are concerned of the ICIJ due to their backers, shouldn’t we also be concerned as to their account of how many files they have regarding the “Panama Papers.”?

    There are so many unanswered questions surrounding the Panama Papers, such as do the files exist? If so who’s holding them? Why haven’t the files been published yet? Why hasn’t Britain and the US seen a release of more names?

    It looks the press have been told, to kick the Panama Papers, into the long grass, for now.

      • Republicofscotland


        I agree, Iceland made a whole bunch of powerful enemies, when they decided to give the finger to their debtors, post 2008.

        On the flip side Greece hasn’t faired much better, and they’ve decided to pay off their debts, albeit over a gazillion years.

        • Martinned

          I just found the notion of Putin and the Prime Minister of Iceland both being victims of the same malicious hacking conspiracy to be wildly entertaining. Thanks! It’s that kind of silliness that is the main reason why I read this blog.

          • Republicofscotland


            Incidently what is your take on, the lack of big hitters in the US and UK, being mentioned in the press, with regards to the Panama Papers.

            Just coincidence I presume. ?

  • RobG

    Craig said: “So the fundamental question is, do you trust the corporate media to give you a true picture?”

    To quote, or perhaps paraphrase, John McEnroe: you can’t be serious!

  • Writerman

    My feeling, or guess, is that this thing wasn’t a ‘leak’ at all from inside, but a ‘hack’ from outside and one requiring substantial resources. My view is that it wasn’t performed by an individual at all, but by a powerful state. Why would a leaker inside, anyone with the ability to access and recognize the importance of this vast trove of material and its value, bother to simply hand it over to the corporate media, who, are, after all, themselves parts of the entire rotten and corrupt corporations that benefit from the very practices the information is supposed to expose? Anyone would surely, if they were on the inside and in a position to leak the material, understand that handing it over to the corporate media, which is there to protect the interests of the very corporations they are an integral part of, is a ridiculous idea. The only way to make sure the material got out uncensored would be to give it to Wikileaks or simply dump it on the Web.

    This whole thing reeks of an intelligence opperation designed to show that corporate responsible journalism…. still works and is an alternative to Wikileaks, in this case it’s a form of ‘propaganda’ for corporate journalism and the old ways of doing business. It’s definitely being sold as an alternative model to Wikileaks, state controlled Wikileaks, all of which should make one very sceptical indeed as to the motives behind the revalations.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    I too was impressed at the speed with which the Panama papers vanished from the front pages, and then everywhere else in the MSM. And it does seem that the ICIJ, which has done some admirable work, has now trimmed its sails to the prevailing corporate breeze. The centrality of institutional cheating and corruption to global finance and trade can never be revealed in any detail, as this would derail everyone’s gravy train. What is needed now is not whistleblowers reporting to ICIJ, but whistleblowers reporting on ICIJ.

    Incidentally, I had, until yesterday, some lingering respect for the BBC’s journalistic standards and what remained of its integrity. Then I heard Radio 4 leading at length on #antisemitisminthelabourparty, yesterday morning. Christ. I’ve little time for RT, but there’s very little to choose between it and ‘Today’ in the ‘achievers in the field of naked propaganda’ category these days.

    • Writerman

      I talked at some length with a BBC journalist recently at a reception. She complained that RT was too closely modelled on the BBC and western media, so that, in her words, the unsophisticated viewer, might miss the fact that it was all merely Kremlin propaganda and because of its style, one that mimics the free media, believe that RT was telling the truth and was just another broadcaster, like the BBC. She thought this was a problem. I countered that perhaps RT mimiced the BBC so well and increasingly looked and sounded like the BBC, because, in a sense it WAS the BBC, only a Russia version of it. This caused her raise her eyebrow somewhat threateningly and unfortunately she chose to move away to the other side of the buffet table, never to return.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    I feel like a bit of an idiot, cos I didn’t really think about it in advance, and all I knew was that it was on Sky today, and well, I don’t normally watch TV, but I would still like to see it if anyone has recorded it.

    What I should have done, is to serially record everything on Sky News in HD.

    All that then would be needed to get pretty good quality is

    1. Camera – or even a mobile phone – but preferably camera with a sound input.

    2. Tripod for camera.

    3. Lead from TV sound out to Camera sound input (not many cameras have a sound input but several of mine do) – you could record the sound from the speakers with the mike in the camera – but its likely to sound a bit tinny.

    4. Shut the curtains, and turn off the lights.

    5. Press record

    6. Upload it to youtube

    7. Post the url here.

    Sorry, about that..I was in a queue at the Post Office and didn’t think in advance.

    However, maybe you weren’t – so …

    Craig doesn’t get on The Telly very often.


      • Tony_0pmoc


        To directly transfer stuff from a Sky HD box to a PC, is incredibly technically difficult, unless you have one of the earliest versions, with RGB outputs and even then it is not easy. This is for completely valid anti-piracy reasons. If I had invested a great deal of money in producing any kind of such work. I wouldn’t want some bugger stealing it and giving it away. That is why the music industry has been largely destroyed, and why most musicians are totally skint.


        • Martinned

          I assumed that you’d be able to watch Sky online, with appropriate passwords, etc.

          As for musicians, they are in the middle of transforming their business model to one based (almost) entirely on income from live performances. So I’m not worried.

  • Pete Riches

    The next tightly-controlled (and presumably strategically selective) ICIJ tranche will be on May 9th. I note it’s going to be their “information on more than 200,000 offshore entities”, as opposed to entire scanned documents, which would reveal far more useful information.

    If only someone would hack the ICIJ and send it to Wikileaks who, as I read, would like to properly disseminate the documents, un-propagandised.


  • Tony_0pmoc

    I have just witnessed something, about animal relationships, not entirely unconnected to human relationships.

    Our cat is a bit old fat and fluffy, and cos there’s a bit of a bald patch, I put some grass seed down yesterday…

    and so she strolled out through the cat flap after eating Whiskas supermeat…and she walks on to the grass (lawn if you a posh)..

    and there is quite large bird eating the grass seed…

    The cat looks at the bird, and the bird looks at the cat.

    I know what they both thinking.

    So the bird keeps eating the grass seed, and the cat – well she just cleans her wonderful furry coat…and they don’t even think which is the fastest. They both think “no chance”. If it had been a fox it would have been a slightly different response..they would have just ignored each other – just tolerated each other…as long as the fox didn’t try and come through the cat flap.

    But if it had been another cat…she would have torn its head off..if it didn’t get off “my territory”. She ain’t too impressed with dogs either…

    But if she gets hungry…well she comes to me and gently puts her paw on me..so gently and polite…and then she looks at me with her big round eyes…

    If none of us humans are here, and she’s hungry..even the dogs are lucky to survive.



  • Loony

    The Panama Papers were almost certainly hacked by a US security agency. Their partial release into the public domain serves two purposes: (i) It serves to embarrass certain individuals whose embarrassment is calculated as being beneficial to the US and; (ii) It serves to encourage rich people concerned with privacy to move to a more “reliable” tax haven – namely the US.

    The real story here is that rich people simply refuse to pay tax – and this refusal is being aided by powerful governments.

    This kind of behavior has long term consequences – consequences that are unlikely to be welcomed by the general population.

    • lysias

      It also serves another purpose: it blackmails those who have used the Panamanian firm (and potentially also other firms) with a threat of revealing their dirt if they don’t play ball.

    • Medieval fwl

      Whilst it is a money laundering offence in the UK to facilitate another evading taxes whatever the other tax jurisdiction in the US it’s okay so long as it’s not US tax evasion.

      • Loony

        Only the stupid would seek to evade taxes in the UK. There are enough tax avoidance schemes to suit your circumstances whatever they may be.

  • Ben Monad

    The same journalists who were wringing their hands over Snowden stopping off in China, then being forced into Russia as the only path? Yes, they are selective and timid.

  • John Goss

    “So the fundamental question is, do you trust the corporate media to give you a true picture?”

    It’s a very good question from a very good post. I would take issue with the ABC documentary being that balanced and free. It covered one already imprisoned crook and others targeted but did not really, in my opinion, get to the nitty-gritty. Most thinking people know that the system is bent, and those who have made money their god will do anything to keep their greedy thieving hands on what is not really theirs. There might be hope yet.


    One of the comments at the end of this short article endorses Michael Meacher’s important questioning of the House.

    “According to Bank of England figures for the decade until 2007, 31% of additional money created by bank lending went towards mortgage lending, 20% towards commercial property, and 32% to the financial sector, including mergers and acquisitions, and trading and financial markets. Those are really extraordinary figures. […] It means that only 8% went to businesses outside the financial sector, with a further 8% funding credit cards and personal loans. It is only this last sixth (the two 8%’s – lending to businesses and consumer credit) that has a real impact on GDP and economic growth, only that 16%.

    The conclusion I think is unavoidable: we cannot continue with a system where so little of the money created by banks is used for the purposes of economic growth and value creation, and instead…the overwhelming majority of the money created has the effect of inflating property prices, and therefore pushing up the cost of living.

    Now, in a nutshell, the banks have too much power and they have greatly abused it. Firstly, they have been granted enormous privileges since they can create wealth simply by writing an accounting entry on a register, and they decide who uses that wealth and for what purpose. And they have used that power of credit creation to hugely favour property and consumption lending over business investment because the returns are higher and more secure, and thus the banks maximize their own interests, but not the national interest.”

  • Ken

    Westminster could just shut down tax havens. Thatcher set them up. The President of Russia would be wealthy. Is Putin motivated by wealth? Or Obama? Cameron/Osbourne target the vulnerable. 3,000+ children.

    Labour support is increasing in the rest of the UK. UKIP still not gaining enough support to break through.

    Scotland still raises the same in tax revenue without Oil £54Billion. £515Billion in tax revenues is raised in the UK. Take away £54Billion = £461Billion raised in the rest of the U.K. Divide by 11 (11/12 pop) = £42Billion (pro rata). The rest of the UK borrows and spends £75Billion more + £20Billion black hole = £95Billion the Deficit. Hinkley Point £25Billion + HS2 £70Billion = £95Billion (double it). Both a total waste of money. HS2 will make journeys through Britain take longer and be more expensive. HS2 is a disaster waiting to happen. The waste will be exported. A £9Billion tidal barrage at Humber would produce more electricity.

    Scotland has to pay back £4Billion in debt repayments it doesn’t borrow or spend. Scotland lost £4Billion? in Oil tax revenues. Osbourne was taxing Oil sector at 60/80% when prices had fallen 75%. Losing thousands of jobs. It is now 40%.
    Trident/illegal wars cost Scotland £1Billion. A tax on ‘loss leading’ drink could save £1Billion. £3Billion? lost on tax evasion. HMRC not fit for purpose. = £13Billion which could be better spent. £54Billion + £9Billion (better spent) = £63Billion + 1/6 (same as the rest of the UK). Would = £74Billion.

    Northern Ireland (2 million) raises £28Billion in tax revenues and receives £14Billion (50%) more = £42Billion – Norwegian levels of funding.

    Scotland pays it’s own (UK) Gov pensions. £6Billion Taken out of general taxation. Lower pro rata than the rest of the UK. + £10Billion benefits.

    Trident £170Billion

    There will be another Referendum because the Unionists cheated to win. They lied.

    • fred

      Bring it on, the polls show you would lose again.

      In further news this week the Sun newspaper didn’t cover the Hillsborough inquest result because at the time they put all the blame on the fans unlawfully killed. They weren’t the only ones I do hope “Rev” Campbell will be man enough to apologise.

      Victims of phone hacking have been given the go ahead to sue the Sun newspaper for damages.

      The Sun newspaper has backed the SNP in the Scottish elections.

  • Phil the ex frog

    Has anyone asked what happened to the last big data stash released through corporate media? That time it was very popular around here.

    Anyway, the documents are still a guarded secret, the releases achieved nothing positive, and some protagonists continue to enrich themselves with ever more shit spectacle. Ladies and gentlemen for your literally mind numbing entertainment:

    Pop music video by Edward Snowden with Jean Michell Jarre:
    Exit [youtube].

    Oliver Stone hagiography with Glenn Greenwald played by Zachary Quinto:
    Snowden Trailer [youtube].

    WARNING: this comment may be shortly destructed

    • Ben Monad

      You don’t sell candy by telling folks it rots your teeth. Anyway, I agree propaganda smells no matter who shits it out, but we are living in supply-side World and people have to be tickled before they get stimulated to do something constructive.

  • Republicofscotland

    I wonder if any financial dirt has been released from the Panama Papers, regarding South African president Jacob Zuma. Zuma who had 738 charges of corruption dropped, now finds that he has come under investigation for an alleged mulit-billion dollar arms deal.

  • Spanky

    The ICIJ is funded, as I pointed out, by corporate America. Their donors include:

    Ford Foundation
    Carnegie Endowment
    Rockefeller Family Fund
    W K Kellogg Foundation
    Open Society Foundation (Soros)

    “Charitable” foundations were investigated by a Senate subcommittee during the 1950s, at about the same time as the McCarthy hearings. The results of the investigation were not publicly disclosed, altho the chief investigator, Rene Wormser (IIRC) later wrote a book based on it. Interesting reading, if you can find it. It underscores both Carroll Quigley’s history, “Tragedy and Hope” and Tom Dye’s long running sociological series “Who Is Running America” which dissect the American “deep state”.

    The simple truth is that most, if not virtually all, chartiable and non-profit organizations receive at least some funding from foundations such as those mentioned by CM. That money creates strings of influence, if not outright dependence. Follow the money to see whom is being influenced and for what purposes…

  • Tony_0pmoc

    The British Newspaper Propaganda industry descends into a complete farce dictated by pillocks like Guido Fawkes sifting through stuff that some people wrote years ago on Facebook..and all this Nonsense is Headline News..and that is The Agenda.

    Meanwhile, ordinary Iraqi’s just stroll into the US “Impregnable” Green Zone in Baghdad which ordinary Americans have been impoverished by having to pay for it…and it barely gets a mention by the The British Newspaper Propaganda industry.

    Thank You God, that I never worked for them…

    What a bunch of useless imbeciles.



  • giyane

    Writerman: …” in this case it’s a form of ‘propaganda’ for corporate journalism and the old ways of doing business.”

    the words corporate and journalism are contradictory, as for ‘old’ and ‘ways of doing business’, are we the successful product of ‘old ‘ chaos policy, manifested in 2 World Wars? or is the total chaos released by USUKIS on Muslim countries a new way of doing business, wrecking anything that’s different to yourselves?

    My mind frankly boggles that any neo-con blairites this week could label anyone as racist, in that the war on terror is a manifestly racist construct, delivered with real destruction of Muslim countries and real destruction of social and moral welfare.

    Are we supposed to feel reassured that some of our fellow human beings are so porkedly stuffed with cash from Thatcherite munificence while others drown I foreign seas to escape from USUKIS chaos policy?

    The message is : We do , in the UK, live in the best of all possible worlds ( irony intended ) but we don’t do truth. If you want truth, best put yourself in line of capitalist lying warmongering bombs. Somewhere at the end of the rainbow. I you want to bring your filthy truth in here, Mr pheasant Livingstone, you will find yourself blasted to fluff by our corporate 12 bore.

  • giyane


    A few years into the Iraq war, an Iraqi asked on TV if the americans in the green zone could send just one man outside to buy one sandwich.

    In spite of, or maybe because of, their overwhelming violence in Iraq, they think they own it. Every village Al Qaida takes from Assad they regard as a US Zionist acquisition, like gambling tokens. The Saudis may be fighting for Damascus, but USUKIS Zionists like the porcine McCain, are fighting for corporate US power.

    • Tony_0pmoc


      I am not a Muslim, but I share your disgust.

      I have never had a problem with Muslims

      Anyhow, I personally think the game is up.

      The World is turning.

      Ordinary people are beginning to work it out…

      I don’t know what is going to happen next, but I think we have been through a period of darkness and evil…but is that a chink of light…??

      Is the sun coming up…so that more us can start to see..???

      I reckon so.

      Never give up hope…its the difference between Night and Day; Evil and Good; The Devil and God

      Which side are You on??

      What do you want?

      War or Peace?

      Love & Peace,



      • Tony_0pmoc

        My previous girlfriend..we cried together when John Lennon died..always signed her letters to me with the Om sign. She is a Yorkshire girl. I always understood what the sign meant, but until today, I never knew its historical origins.


        You need to click to read it; you may never understand it…but basically its nice.


1 2