Elaine Meinel Supkis
Bloggers across the planet are being attacked by English lawyers who live in a country that is literally owned by Her Majesty, the Queen. The government there recently changed leaders and the voters had absolutely nothing to say about this, for example. And the Queen merrily hosts pirate coves for hell hounds right off the shores of Her truncated empire. The English not only don't have freedom of speech, they have no rights to privacy and as our empire is molded more and more into the shape and form of the British Empire, we lose our civil rights.
Murray's odyssey began in early September when he posted a pejorative description of Usmanov on his blog.
Schillings, a London law firm specializing in media entertainment, then fired back for Usmanov with legal warnings to Fasthosts, the blog's Internet service provider, demanding elimination of the posting within 24 hours.
More letters followed and by the fourth complaint, Fasthosts simply deactivated the Web site - along with two other servers, shutting down more than a dozen other sites, including that of a British member of Parliament.
"It's extremely scary that this can happen, because they can take down something without anything being tested in court, without any legal sanction at all except a letter from a high-priced lawyer," Murray said in an interview. "I'm very happy to have this tested in court. Why don't they do that? Because that will bring together people who know the truth of the matter."
After his blog was silenced, a number of other bloggers with views ranging across the political spectrum started organizing a coalition to seek legislative protections, according to Tim Ireland, an online marketing consultant whose blog also vanished when the servers were shut down.
The Internet Service Providers Association, or ISPA, the leading trade group for British ISPs, is also hosting a meeting of its members this month to debate the issue.
My family voted to behead a previous King of England. Then were forced to flee. Then some returned with Queen Anne. Who had no children so we ended up revolting against George III of Brunswick. One of my ancestors, Richard Steele, was the founder and publisher of the first newspaper in England. In our revolution here, we wanted freedom of speech because this was necessary for democracy.
Let's go back to when someone else had freedom of speech: ancient Greece. Up until 322 BC, the Greeks debated politics in the open. The horrible execution/suicide of Socrates frightened and angered his students who went out and worked hard under the school of Plato to enshrine free speech and open debate. They recognized that scientific inquiry and understanding numbers required free association and the open debate of ideas which could be defended with vigorous debate. This is all connected with humanist philosophical lifestyles and political democratic rule.
As usual in history, this was terminated with a certain degree of brutality. Alexander the Great's father ended all political debates in 322 BC. The hatchery for US leaders and movers and shakers, the Skull and Bones (partially founded by one of my ancestors, Henry Steele) celebrates this number as their 'magic number' that gives them power. I find it totally revolting that the place that breeds and connects the people who have founded the more anti-democratic parts of our government does this.
The ironic twists of history! Alexander's followers wanted science and knowledge and they preserved much of the dynamic knowledge created under the previous Athenian system of free speech. But there was no free speech at all. So this knowledge barely grew. A great library was built in Alexandria, Egypt, for the preservation of this knowledge.
But despotism ruled. At the very same time the Romans conquered all this and enslaved the scholars...literally...the Age of Aries ended and the Age of Pisces dawned. The stars and constellations, relative to the earth, shift over time and we pass through the various houses of the Zodiac every 5,000 to 1,500 years depending on the size of the star groups of various constellations. Every time a shift is seen by ancient astronomers and soothsayers, panic rises and religions morph or collapse and are replaced in mass religious-revolutions. So the Romans literally carried off the Greek teacher/philosophers of the former Alexandrian empire into slavery to teach their own young.
But the Romans didn't allow any freedom of speech from their slaves, not at all. They wanted servile slaves and teachers who dared to say anything wayward to the young Ceasars was whipped and humiliated. The Romans kept all the 'free speech' knowledge alive but in chains. Meanwhile, since no one was allowed to debate anything once the Emperors began their brutal rule, the Greek-like 'democracy' of the Senate collapsed and learning pretty much stopped. The Romans were told by the Greek and Egyptian astronomers that the stars had shifted and the Age of the Two Fishes had begun. This caused great superstitious fear and Christianity was born. The first signs of the Jesus cult was not one but two fishes. And he was refered to as 'The sacrificial lamb of God' meaning the sign of the Lamb on an altar which is Aries, was now dead and burned and was now with the Gods.
After this, raging mobs burned the great Alexandrian library. 90% of the knowledge built up by the Greek philosophers and historians vanished! And the tiny shreds we have today barely escaped the fires of history. When we read the histories written by the Greeks and then compare them with the histories written by the Romans, we can see the obvious deterioration. Ceasare was one of the last 'rational' writers, he cold-bloodedly discussed his conquests and we know a lot about pre-Roman Europe from him.
Levy, a Jewish intellectual who came out of the wreckage of the Jewish revolt alive, was also a Greek-style historian but no one dared look at the increasingly violent, strange and demented Emperors who ruled so carelessly and ruthlessly after 57 AD. People were allowed to gossip and we have a lot of gossip from the corrupt Roman Empire but people ceased being philosphers and scientists. Credulity grew along with outright superstitions. The rulers believed in magic more than in rational thinking. They were always looking for some magical way to become more powerful and richer. They openly followed courses that any sane, rational person could see would end in the destruction of civilization. But the people discussing this were few and if found, killed.
Ancient Athens destroyed its democracy by becoming an empire. Thucydides wrote a scathing history of the Peloponnesian Wars. He admired Pericles, the demogogic leader of the Greeks (meaining, he used speeches to gain consensus for actions). After Perilcles died of the plague, there were no strong leaders and a defeated Athens was open to conquest and rule. One can see in the histories of ALL the great empires, the ability to give speeches that motivate people and which clearly address important details about economic matters as well as diplomacy, etc, deteriorates rapidly.
This is quite noticable over time. It takes around 150 years of imperialism to kill off speechmaking. Sometimes, an empire can give birth to a great flurry of fine speeches and plays. Mostly, these happen at the beginning and seldom, at the end of an empire's rule. Shakespeare was able to write some of the greatest meditations on power, money and dynasty under the generous rule of Queen Elizabeth. But the growth of the British Empire meant censorship and there were no followers of Shakespeare. He was a bright lightning bolt flashing across the Heavens. Right on the heels of his death, people were tortured to death or burned at the stake for questioning religious dogma. Whole populations had to flee England, seeking freedom and of these, most didn't want full freedom. Only a handful of refugees wanted true free speech.
So, the rules which govern England are drastically different from the rules running the US. The fracas over the Queen's behavior while being photographed for propaganda purposes shows clearly, who rules England.
She stormed out of a photo shoot, complaining when the person behind the camera asked her to take off her crown. It was a great story about how Queen Elizabeth II stormed off in a temper tantrum while famed photographer Annie Leibovitz asked her for one more take as part of her 80th birthday celebrations.
There's just one thing wrong with it. It wasn't true. Last July, we told you how the BBC had mixed up a sequence of events in a TV documentary that appeared to show the Queen acting like a petulant child and storming out of the room in frustration. Now that error has cost the head of the famed network his job.
Controller Peter Fincham resigned after an independent inquiry into the incident found examples of "misjudgments, poor practice and ineffective systems" at the "Beeb" under his guidance. The man who made the film also handed in his papers.
The network apologized to the Queen in the summer, admitting the footage really showed the monarch entering the room - not leaving it. The shots created such an uprorar, they never made it to air but they were put in a trailer that was widely promoted.
Eh? This makes no sense at all. Did she storm INTO the room? And how can the film be 'misinterpeted' when there is a huge difference between entering and exiting a room? And this is easy to call: just show us the video. Naturally, the Queen had to discipline her subjects. The history of the dead Princess was slowly re-written in England to make it look as if the Queen was a loving mother in law instead of the mother in hell she evidently really is. I watched the funeral of Diana because dynastic politics are an interest to me.
The Queen, if we recall accurately, didn't want a state funeral for the mother of the princes. Like any good dynastic ruler, she hated a number of her relatives. The dynasties of Europe have this very long love/hate relationship. They will gladly stab in the back, poke out the eyes, assassinate and have all sorts of queer relationships with each other, not a happy family. Since Diana came from a long line of sub-royalty, the Spencers going all the way back to the War of the Roses when the British Plantagenets were in a particularily ugly and terminal killing spree of each other, she was socially equal to the German House of Brunswick descendants. By rights, Diana deserved a state funeral.
Charles, alarmed at the unpopularity of his double-timing the Princess leading to the divorce, wanted to show honor to his dead ex-wife but his mother refused and they argued until she grudgingly assented. Then she refused to leave her palace and also wanted her sons and grandsons to remain with her and as the coffin sat at the gates of the castle, I watched with rising amusement, this argument raging just inside the gates. The sons wanted to walk behind their beloved mother. Charles wanted to do this, also.
Diana's crass brother was insisting on walking with the princes. So the consort king who has no power turned to his wife, the Queen and said he would escort everyone and off he marched. He carefully placed himself between the princes and the brother of the dead ex-princess.
This whole episode was a problem for the Queen. Her popularity fell rapidly. So over time, the BBC, an arm of the Crown, had to paper over this mess. As one commission after another set up to investigate the death/murder of this princess collapsed, the government wanted some 'fixes' on reality. One thing they did was put up a TV show that made it look as if the Queen was heartbroken at the death of her hated rival. At one point, when the death was announced, the movie showed a deer in the mist and the audience was supposed to get all misty-eyed as the teearful Queen expressed sympathy and horror that the woman she hated more than all others, was suddenly dead.
Queen Elizabeth I used to do this, too. She would sign an execution order and then wail as former friends, family members and lovers were lopped off. It would put her in a bad humor.
I am harping on this because a pack of lawyers in England tried to get my own blog removed---SECRETLY---but thanks to the fact that I pay a good amount of money to my web hosts, they protected me. But the lawyers there are seeking ways of silencing me and they have the full support of the Queen. She greatly dislikes anyone looking into her financial affairs. Which are flourishing right now thanks to her association with rich people seeking tax havens and the right to have piratical financial laws that allows them to cheat investors as well as strip money from governments like our US democracy as well as the English Parliament itself.
Dan Rather followed in my footsteps and tried to cover real news about Bush going AWOL during the Vietnam War. I was one of the original crew that investigated and then broadcast this information in 2000. In 2004, he decided (after refusing to air the same news in 2000) to follow our leads. This got him fired just as my work got Bush so angry, he sent Haley Barbour to the New York Times to demand they cease allowing me access to their publications via the back door of their forums (I had set up a system of publishing information at regular hours at specific spots which were very popular back then).
Silencing investigators and critics is high on the list of things to do if one is a despot. The internet greatly distresses these people who love the internet because it gives them more money and power but at the same time, it also has given us outsiders lots of power. The US can't stop bloggers legally but they can use English lawyers who have no love of democracy at all. Since the whole world can see the internet, corporate interests here can use lawyers all over to fight off bloggers who talk about them.
Rulers can do this, too, thanks to the quirks in English laws. Europe can censor web sites due to their 'anti-hate' laws that now imprison people for writing 'Seig Heil' or showing Nazi pictures. I have cartooned using Nazi signs and I wonder if those pages are censored in Europe. The news about Germans going to prison for having a birthday cake for Hitler's birthday didn't get much circulation here in the US but the point is, the fake democracies of Europe is not free at all. You have to watch what you say and who you say it to. Instead of civility and open debate, in Europe, one can't debate a number of issues including the Holocaust.
On top of all this, we are in a very bloody push to 'spread democracy' in Muslim lands. The Muslims will riot over things that appear on the internet but at the same time, the ruling class in Europe will suppress free speech when it is in their interest to do so. We are not speading democracy, we are seeing it increasingly restricted. The internet was great when it showed a slack-jawed and cruel Senator Kerry standing by while a student in Florida who asked too many questions was beaten and tasered and dragged away. This poor young man was carrying a book by Greg Palast. Greg has been sued by the Queen of England and Barricke Gold for things he wrote about them in the past.
In England, this very week, anti-war demonstrators are demanding the right to demonstrate in front of Parliament. In America, when we have demonstrations, the Capitol and the White House are barricaded off and most demonstrations occur when no one is at home in Congress and Bush is gone from the White House. The rulers now hold meetings all over the planet that are highly protected with rings of guards and tremendous violence shown towards any demonstrators who don't stay in their distant cages! Greenpeace used to do big publicity stunts and in retaliation, the French, for example, blew up one of their ships and killed people. Recently, a ship was literally run over by a German goverment speed boat during anti-globalization demonstrations. The joining of the US, Canada and Mexico meetings were held in a remote resort surrounded by barbed wire!
All Bilderberger meetings feature arrests and harrassment of demonstrators and reporters. The major media which covered up for the ruling elites can't keep this dark cover much longer thanks to the internet. The cover has been yanked off and we are in a dangerous situation where the leaders are contemplating imitating the Chinese communists and simply imprisoning and torturing writers who dare publish anything on line that reveals what is really going on.
This is why the EU is passing laws that registers reporters: so they can put in prison anyone who is not a 'reporter'. And if the state decides who is a reporter, who is a pundit, who is a Socrates, we get the collapse of the Roman Empire! For this is what we lose!
Before the internet, virtually no one knew of the Skull and Bones. Before the internet, no one knew the data underlying economic facts. If someone thought outside of the box, they were boxed on the ears and told to shut up before the internet. Now, when the mainstream media lies, there is an army of reporters and investigators to go after them and this displeases them since they are servants of the ruling class. And the Queen is NOT amused.
After a complaint about my cartoons, Google 'vanished' them until last week when they suddenly reappeared. I don't have the faintest idea, what happened. All I know is, instead of my cartoons, they had pictures of gagged women if one googled 'Elaine Meinel Supkis' images! I suspect this was a message to me from Google---either a warning or a sign they left to show that they were forced to gag me. Maybe I am reading too much in this but I have GOOD REASON to be paranoid in this regard.
All my life, I bubble to the surface of the news, sometimes, international news. Then they delete me. It is very peculiar. For example, when I was representing the Chinese student studying in America who were demonstrating against the Chinese and US governments in front of the UN, I was on international news feeds every couple of hours as well as frequently making speeches, etc. But all mention of my activities and speeches, one of which was published by the NY newspapers in full, have been eliminated from the history of that time, 1989. There is a laconic statement in a history book from that time that says, 'The Chinese leadership was very angry with a woman in New York City who led the demonstrations in front of the UN but they refuse to talk about her.'
HAHAHA. They certainly talked to me back then, they yelled at me. So when I talk about the past, people think I am nuts or exaggerating things. But this is the nature of the Beast: it can't kill, it can't push for WWIII, it can't dominate the planet if people like myself are interfering all the time. The New World Order doesn't want to hear from a fellow ruling elitist who is warning them about the future. The dangers of empire are great and the imperialists need to heed the warnings about the dangers and this is exactly what they don't want: changing course. Stopping the status quo and changing direction.
Democracy. They hate this above all. Long live the Internet! Long live freedom of speech!