The Hypocrisy of Anonymous

I have a friend who claims that he is a member of Anonymous. I have a friend who claims that you cannot be a 'member' of anonymous because that's the whole nature of the organisation. Theses two friends are in fact the same person and I am now going to explain why the activist group "anonymous" are hypocritical and how they are pawns in there own chess set.

The basic premise to anonymous, as i understand it, is that they are a group of like minded individuals who are against secrecy of wrong doing within large corporations. Sounds legit, right?

As I mentioned before, they pride themselves on anonymity, however there large majority insist on wearing the mask from "V for Vendetta", which hides there face yes, but make the organisation 'anonymous' no longer so.

Personally I think that this group are effectivly hypocrites, after all was it not Hitler who campaigned and preached about the disastrous government and then when he got into power he took all freedom away? What im saying is that they themselves do not uphold there own values, as they are trying to remove the ability to be anonymous and yet they are anonymous?

Another thought for you:

is it not possible for this group to be initiated by the establishment? would it not benefit the government to find a scape goat in order ovoid any blame?
 Anonymous are registered by the authorities as a terrorist organistaion and this just proves my point. Anonymous are hypocrites, they make out like they are in the same vein as the sufferegettes and the like, however they aim to dominate and remain anonymous themselves while hating those who have the power that they so desperately crave.

please share this article, too free the misled minds of the few.

- this is not a well written article....this is a observation.

Illuminati and the 2012 games...

Some believe that the 2012 Olympic games will be the host for a fake terrorist plot orchestrated by the underground organisation the 'Illuminati'. But is there any evidence for this?


There was a lot of conspiracy theory's about 9/11, which i will not get into; 9/11 and 7/7 both had several media clues before both events that are beyond coincidence and it is possible that the same thing has happened regarding the 2012 games. (Panorama made a program which turned out to detail the exact events of 7/7).


There was a BBC program that was aired a few months ago, that looked at the implications and effects of a nuclear bomb at the 2012 Olympics, is this a sign?


The Olympic mascots this year are some of the most basic clues to the Illuminati's involvement, as they depict the 'all seeing eye'and the capstone of the revered Illuminati pyramid (seen on american currency):

Added to that, the Official Statue/sculpture of the 2012 games, is a 9 meter abstract spider, however it is the name of the spider that has caught the attention of the world. The sculpture is called the "spirit of Zionism". Zionism is a age old religion that has had close links with the Illuminati and the Lord mayor of London said at the grand opening, that this sculpture was "in keeping with the Zionist theme of the 2012 games".

We have all seen the 2012 logo for the up coming Olympics, but if rearranged it spells Zion:

Some say that this is just scaremongering,but why the dot in the middle, is it needed to spell '2012'? As i have shown above there are a lot of 'coincidences'. Even the Iranian government picked up on the above and threatened to boycott the games if the symbols were not altered.

But why would the Illuminati want to bomb the Olympics?

well as has been proved by 9/11, any orchestrated form of terrorism will be compounded by all the clishé terrorist groups, as it is them who will happily take the credit. The Illuminati believe :

"ORDO AB CHAO"

OR

"ORDER OUT OF CHAOS" 

The Olympics bring together the whole world and it would be the perfect place to implement the final stages of a plan that has been hundred of years in the making..

Another coincidence is the floodlights that surround the main stadium, are they not identical to the symbols in the above picture of the doller bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcOwDjd_i9M&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai0y5sLg5bg&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MoPHKlQQAlo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFHcOw9INj4&feature=related

Please watch the above videos, although the last link is a rather long video the others are very short and 'a picture paints a thousand words'.

I am not preaching, it is up to you to decide for yourself, i am just providing a compilation of strange coincidences. I will leave you with a quote:

"All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the new world order"

David Rockerfeller - UN speech 1994

Leveson

For those of you that follow British Politics and other related news will be aware of the current ongoing inquiry into 'phone hacking'. This court case has now escalated and has brought not just celebrity victims to the stand but also high value politicians such as Tony Blair and most recently David Cameron as the inquiry decides whether there was any foul play by ministers and PMs regarding the media coverage they recived.

This is rather a complex subject, and whilst i don't want to 'dumb it down' too much, i feel that getting into the fine detail would be irrelevant to help me explain and examine what i intend too.

The basic jist of what has been happening most recently in the inquiry is this: Politicians are being accused or meeting with high ranking editors and even owners of national newspapers and engaging in 'under the table' deals in order to secure support from that particular newspaper. As im sure you know, all national papers have some sort of general political slant, for example, during the time of Tony Blair the SUN newspaper was in high support however when Gordon Brown succeeded him the sun made a controversial jump over the 'political neutral zone' in favour of the conservatives. David Cameron has this past week been attempting to convince the court that there was no 'foul play' involved in that aforementioned event and that no such immoral behaviour ever occurs.

David Cameron did however seem rather shaken up by then end his time in the stand, often referring back to his "foggy memory". The evidence however did not look good for him, he met with James Murdoch (son of Rupert Murdoch, who owns the largest share in the media industry in the world, including many of the main national newspapers in England) 15 times while he was in opposition and has been stated to have met with over 1,000 journalists during his political career.

Irrelevant to the evidence, all of which is circumstantial, David Cameron denies that there is a "nod wink" relationship between the Tories and the Murdoch family.

I am focusing on the Prime Minister because of his position, but there has been a whole host of high ranking politicians, and journalists who have crawled out the 'woodwork', all have been making accusations and all have been accused in equal measure.

Apart from outlining the recent events in the inquiry i also want to give my slant:
When you are talking about media and politics, it is important that you consider that it is a fine equilibrium; Media keeps politicians in check simply by posing the threat of negative press and Politicians keep media in check through its legislation and such like, however in many ways the two subjects are like 'oil and water' but in other ways they are like 'fish and chips' (cant have one without the other).

When corruption creeps into politics and media...then both entities collapse and that is what is being investigated in this inquiry, personally i feel that the people of power have attained and remained in power through the deals that no one knows about, with lots of 'winks and nods'. Time will only tell what is uncovered, but hopefully both the Media and Politics will be the better for it.

Football Violence

Euro 2012, is a football competition that pitches all European nations against each other.

The current competition is being hosted by Poland and Ukraine, which has caused some controversy. Poland has long been renowned for its football related violence, having one of the highest football related crime rates in Europe. Many worry that having such a large competition in Poland could be a recipe for disaster, and even though we are only a day into the competition, there has already been problems.

14 people have been arrested in Poland following a brawl over the Ireland vs Croatia match, which is yet to take place. Polish police have confirmed that 10 of the individuals arrested were polish and that the brawl included glass bottles and chairs being thrown.

My question is, who made the final call that resulted in Poland being chosen as a host nation? It has been well documented that football violence is rife in this country and why would this change for an international competition? The aforementioned brawl is not the only 'hiccup' so far, as Russian fans have been documented to have attacked stadium stewards during a game this week. Russians fans have also been accused of Racism. This all has occurred within the first week of the tournament and if occurrences like this continue, it could prove a disaster for Uefa.

Football fans by enlarge are peaceful and patriotic and simply enjoy watching the sport with the hope of there nation succeeding, but there are those who take this a step too far and decide to use violence. I am not accusing polish football fans of being violent, but you cannot deny that there are more football related violent incidents in Poland then in most other nations and i worry if letting Poland host the Euros was such a good decision.

Time will only tell if things get worse, but there are concerns that travelling supporters run the risk of being targeted by violent gangs while in Poland and this is something that must be addressed if the competition is to continue. The Euros is a fantastic opportunity for Poland and it would be a shame for the nation to be tarnished from violence.

Diamond Jubilee

As many of you will be aware, regardless of what country you live in; this weekend is the Queens diamond Jubilee.

This is a celebration to celebrate 60 years on the throne for the Queen of England, Elizabeth II. I am not interested at looking at her 60 year reign, I want to explore the festivity as an entity. In England, we are having a 4 day weekend in celebration, with what is effectively a 'double bank holiday'....but is this really necessary?

I am a fan of the monarchy and feel it is justified to celebrate such a momentous occasion, but 4 days seems to be a bit excessive. In my village, as I'm sure in most other locations around the UK, there is a street party which has become the conventional way to celebrate monarch related holidays such as coronations and jubilees. What i find amazing, is how much preparation and alteration there has been for this single event; hundreds of roads will be closed and thousands of shops will be closed.

i spoke to the owner of my local shop yesterday, and I asked him if he was to be open during the bank holiday, and he told me that although he should close, he had no option but to open because as he said "if we close, we make no money, and yet i still have outgoings". This huge celebration seems a bit in excess, especially when you consider the amount of money that is being spent, and I thought we were in recession? It is not just the weekend that has cost the tax payer, but the queen also went on a tour of her sovereign states, including Jamaica and Australia, again at the tax payers expense.

I am indeed very happy for the Queen to reach this huge landmark, and I do agree that it should be a cause for celebration, but in this time of financial difficulty, could it not have been done is a slightly more low key manor?

Just a thought, obviously.

Thriller

Michael Jackson was possibly the king of pop music, and his music is possibly the most well know in the world. My issue is not with his talent, which is undeniable, my concern is the individual himself. I am aware that it might seem distasteful to criticize someone who has passed away, but criticism is not my intention. I want to look at the effects success had on Michael Jackson.

Forget your Justin Bieber's and Lady Gaga's, Michael was the biggest and the richest musician that has ever lived, he was also the most famous, this is not mere opinion as it has been recognised by the guinness book of world records. This man has contribute more to dance, fashion and music then any other individual dead or alive and this is why he saw such success.

Sadly however Michael Jackson was not perfect, his huge wealth led to the development of an addiction to spending; Michael was infamous for spending literally millions per binge and this led to his financial demise. By the end of his career he had sold 750 million records and won more awards then any other artist in history but he was tainted from constant negative press and his addiction to spending money. Michael received huge media attention when it came out that he had been having medical assistance to change the colour of his skin, and although he denied this to start of with, it became clear pretty soon that he had in fact had his skin bleached; this was an act that lost him a great many supporters, particularly in the African-american community. Such was his overall popularity that any amount of negative press would not dent the millions of fans he had over the world. Another scandle that tainted his reputation was that of Child molesting, and although nothing was ever proved, it didn't help his wavering supporters.

The addiction to spending money was the result of what was reported to be a $900 million fortune, some even claim that his bank balance alone reached levels close to this which would have made him the first billionaire musician if you take into consideration his assets and the music catalogue he owned, including all of the Beatles tracks which he reportedly paid $46 million for;however much of this was rough estimation and speculation. There was also another side to Michael; by the end of his life in 2009, he had donated £300 million to charity's across the world and although he had received so much negative media attention over his career, he funeral in 2009 was the most high profile in history, with over 1 billion viewers across the world.

To summarise: Although flawed, Michael Jackson was and is the Most successful and most loved musician ever and he has donated more money then any other celebrity. Arguably money corrupted him slightly and at times his fame hindered him, but over all he was a man that standards are now set by and that is a feat to which all can strive for.

Chelsea

I am a Chelsea fan. (for those who don't know, Chelsea is a English football team).


This team is owned by a Russian billionaire, who has made a reputation for having no limits to what he spends of this football club, most recently splashing out £50 million on Fernando Torres. Some people claim that money has been the key to his success, effectively 'buying success', but is this a bad thing? 


There are teams in the world who will only accept players who were born local to their area, regardless of that  teams finances, and other teams such as Barcelona and Manchester City have spent vast quantity's of money importing the best talent from around the world to their respective clubs. The afore mentioned teams have indeed seen success, with Barcelona being renowned to be the best club in the world. But the money spent in this industry has always been a contentious issue. The English football regulator, the "FA" are planning to take steps to prevent this money monopoly by implementing rules that state that if a football club does not turn a profit every year, then it will face punishment in the form of a fine or a positional penalty, which they think will eradicate the richer clubs from throwing money around and achieving success merely from the level of investment. 


Let me ask you: When purchasing a car or a watch, are you not of the opinion that to a degree the more you pay, the better quality you receive? A £30 watch will not be made to the same standards as a £500 watch, and obviously there are watches, in the same way that there are cars that cost a disproportionate amount of money, but that does not invalidate the point, would you not agree that when owners of football clubs spend more money, they are not buying success but investing, and success is a product of their investment?


The point im trying to make is that we do not live in a communist society, and there will always be financial differences, particularly in competitive sports such as football, and that should not be taken as an unfair advantage but rather seen as something to which all should aspire. 


'If you have the money, spend it"....would you not agree?