A Ludicrous Diversion ?
Lord Patel sent an e-mail to ludicrousdiversion@hotmail.com , the
point of contact offered to viewers of their Google fillum "Ludicrous Diversion" (20,054 viewers to date) ....
which read, inter alia ..
The Fillum asks many questions and provides no answers, other than wide and often unspoken inferences.
One question to which an answer would be welcome , is, who was involved in making the fillum ?
Lord Patel has received a reply from LudDiv, the wonderful and brief conflation of their fillum title suggesting the terrorist activities of Nick Ludd with military strength and organisation.
Here it is....(with annotations by my staff of keen eyed post-modernist constructionists, semioticists and language analysts, in alternate colour)
---------
"Hi - Thanks for your kind consideration of our film.
We are citizens whose only comittment is finding the truth for the familes(sic) of all the victims, and also justice for all the Muslims who now find themselves under orweliian (sic) scrutiny.
We also want a world for our children to grow up in which is free from fearmongering and prejudice, especially from our own government, police and media."
Well, no arguments there, Mom and Apple Pie being popular pretty well everywhere.
"Onto 7/7, the problem with suggesting theories is that in the minds of the general public, one is using the internet to simply pit onesleft (sic) up against the opinions of the mainstream news."
Hey, Hey, the Gubment line is clear, 4 young men, Islamic nutcases, blew themselves up on London Transport. Period. The rest is mere detail. There ARE alternative explanations, but, principally because there is little reliable information available to us there is, as it were, (at present) no Unified Field Theory... but there are some highly credible scenarios... even the poorest scientific examination requires a set of working hypotheses.
"In addition, speculation that any of the bombers were actually even in luton (sic) or london (sic) that day is presupposing an involvement which may be false."
Well the fact that the relatives have accepted (without public demur) the mangled remains of their "loved ones" retrieved from the bomb sites is difficult to argue with .... and if they are wrong, then these guys have apparently shuffled off this mortal coil somehow. Is someone (seriously) suggesting , Hey let's bomb the train, organise these hire cars, fiddle phoney CCTV at Luton, etc etc and then bump these 4 patsies off ... surely a complication too far. KISS. Which you then accept ...
"Were these events to have been staged it would have been too risky to have the possibility of any survivors through a malfunction of any element of the plot."
Remember Jack Ruby and Oswald ?... Fuck up Factors are ALWAYS factored in at the planning stage.
"The perpetrators of this atrocity would not have taken any risks at all, and it is our understanding that many of the apparent discrepancies are likely to be deliberate misdirections, such is the sophistication inherent in a false flag operation of global significance such as 7/7."
Nothing in life is risk free, even for State terrists, a smash up on the Motorway from Leeds to Luton ?
The likely perpetrators are invariably:-
1 Those that control the security which needs to be withdrawn/controlled.
2 Those that stand to gain
Spot on. No fault with the analysis. Cui bono as Mr Cicero said, in another time and place.
Who benefits ? Well it certainly feeds the fear factory - enabling the enabling of even more State control by legislation ... and the associated subset of demonising and scapegoating Muslims (especially young males)
"Let's keep in touch - LD"
I certainly will. The question remains...
" .....who was involved in making the fillum ?"
The syntax and spelling is left for the judgement of the reader - it doesn't mesh with the slick professional approach to making the fillum. Unless inserted as a gloss on a draft, to imply or infer a certain happy go lucky agit-prop, fuck you lifestyle.
I think the Osama Bin Laden videos via Al Jazeera come with better credentials.... at least using only stills (apart from what the TV drama people call establishing long shots etc.,) they have no problems with lip synch... although there is a nice (b)loop of Sir Ian Blair.
IN CONCLUSION
Here at Patel Towers we are reminded of Marvell, "This coyness lady were no crime, but at my back I always hear, Time's winged chariot ...etc". By all means produce anonymous fillums ignoring vital aspects of the known data about 7/7 and associated events - the Israeli connection perhaps ? Choose to ignore the alternative scenarios that provide alternative explanations , prior to the elusive and probably unlikely Public Enquiry. Hide your identity(ies). Leave your motives unclear, which from the perspective of another seeker of the Truth about 7/7 , somewhat deflating, which will ultimately deter other such Truth seekers - as exemplified by one viewers response on the 9/11 blog forum - and they are pretty sceptical bunch by definition.
Of course your reluctance for public identification may shield other motives, other people, other ideas, other objectives, different goals and ultimately hide the true identity of the people who organised the death of 52 people in London on 7th July 2006.
If it doesn't, tell us who you are.
SO SMART ARSE WHAT IS YOUR UNBRIDLED FANTASY ?
Those anxious to know Lord Patel's views on the modus operandi of the 7/7 bombers see his ideas ,which started with the post July 15th "Another bloody silly conspiracy theory" one week after the event and also "Dead Men Tell no Tales" of the same date at "Investigating Imperialism".
Who was responsible? Folks in control - well mix Israeli State controlled organisations, neo - cons with connections to them and the military industrial complex - such as say, Grumman Northrop who NOW run the UK prime Identity system IDENT1 which used to be run by the Met. Police until April 2005.
Folks on the ground ? Mix in the ex Special forces of several sorts and backgrounds, various MI5 / 6 operators, "ex" spooks, Asian muslims from the Leeds area hauled in for questioning and released quietly without charge, White thugs AKA Muslims in (what was) Al Muhajiroun in Luton + the odd drug baron(ess).
Proof - absolutely Fuck all. Same as the Gubment fantasy. There is however a coherent and believable basis for the hypothesis..some story is true, because those people are dead.... and waiting around for an "official" enquiry won't produce it.
Which is a step up on an admittedly slick graphic represenation of some of the known "facts" cobbled with a litany of the all pervading power of the UK State and a voice full of gravitas and an an upbeat soundtrack that Mike Moran might have had a hand in.
8 comments:
Even the CIA tells you to analyse competing hypotheses. See Richard Heuer's work. Potter around a bit and you'll find a pdf link to his book.
For extra points; close scrutiny of the book will tell you that our spooks should've made an audit trail that includes such competing hypotheses as My Lord Patel's one about duped drug mules. Get Bridgitte to chase this up with a FOI order ...
".... an audit trail that includes such competing hypotheses as My Lord Patel's one about duped drug mules."
Which maybe the "Trial run" CCTV was ready for ? You will note that Lord Patel AKA Gypsy Petulengro had covered this in his original fantasy / fillum script.
Thanks by the way for the link to Richard Heuer. ..."Heuer's concept of "Analysis of Competing Hypotheses" (ACH) is among his most important contributions to the development of an intelligence analysis methodology." ...as they teach you in MI6.
Which was core to a (long) short story I wrote "Indecision Theory" dealing with this, which my narrator called "The Theory of the Excluded Muddle" which Aristotelian logicians will readily identify.
e-mail and I will send it you.
When the government will not allow a proper investigation of a crime from which it has sougth political advantage, the only solution is for the public to take matters into their own hands. This seems to be a time for tar and feathers.
I'm not sure why you bother, you’re a skeptic, fair fucks to you, but as with all empirically minded numb skulls, such as yourself, you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Irrespective of the conspiratorial slant of this "fillum", it points out plenty of absurdities; with relation to the undermining of civil liberties in the UK. The current powers of arrest available to British place are potentially threatening to us all and I think such facts are worth reiterating (as many times as it takes to get it through to people). I don't think the general populous is actually aware of the governmental powers that have been attained since 9/11. Don't you care? Is cynicism your defense mechanism? The only weapon you have to fight your insecurities? Another one of these I’m not guilty so I have nothing to worry about people? Do you actually believe that a handful of Muslim terrorists present some kind of threat to humanity? Do you buy all of this, “threat to our way of life” bullshit Bush and Blair spout? They offer a threat to free market expansionism in the Middle East, that’s about it. Are you maintaining that the corporatists will stop short? They will do anything to achieve there ends; they have no genuine respect for human life. It does not matter what nationality, race, creed, religion, you happen to be, you are expendable. Doesn’t it bother you that you live in a word where those who see themselves as superior to you view you as no better than slug? Are you denying that there are elites who have an agenda that runs contrary to the concerns of the majority of the people on this planet? Look at the evidence: corruption, cronyism, lies, deceit, and injustice. They know better than us, right? Just because some of the methods employed look “conspiratorial” when scrutinized in isolation, it does not discount the fact that such activities are entirely feasible, or do you deny this? There is a bigger picture, don’t you like the look of it, or are you happy sheeping your way through life?
I think the motives of the film makers are quite clear: to make clear that Britain is being turned into a police state, and to discredit the major official justification for that (the official 7/7 narrative).
You may think I am naive to take them at face value, but to suspect them of some secret ulterior motive, couldn't that also be regarded as "a complication too far"? The only evidence I can see you putting forward for a secret motive is that they are anonymous. You have also suggested on Stef's blog that they may be trying to divide 7/7ers, but the only 7/7er I respect who is less than enthusiastic about Ludicrous Diversion is yourself.
In terms of the film's argument, it is not necessary to have an alternative explanation. If the official narrative is wrong it cannot be used to justify repressive legislation, and that argument stands no matter what actually did take place.
The film states very baldly that parliament and the media are working for the government against the people, rather than holding the government to account for the people as they should be. The challenge of the film is: if you don't believe us, try it out for yourself. I suspect most people still think we live in good old England with a parliamentary democracy and a free press, so I think it is a good challenge and I hope people will try writing to MPs and newspapers and find out for themselves how unsatisfactory the responses are. I am sure Postman Patel is under no illusion (I am thankful for his very informative blog) and doesn't need this challenge, but I think he is an exception rather than the rule.
I do not know the identity of the film producers. I made an educated guess, but I have been informed that I was wrong. But since you see value in having a working hypothesis, I would guess someone who is in mainstream broadcasting but knows their employer wouldn't touch anything like Ludicrous Diversion with a barge pole. Someone with a large mortgage, maybe a family too, facing ever increasing fuel bills (as forecast by Lord Patel of the Internet) who would be facing a huge lifestyle change if he lost his job, but who wants to try to do something about what he sees happening.
Maybe I was too optimistic! In response to an observation made by someone else I have e-mailed Ludicrous Diversion as follows:
I enjoy Ludicrous Diversion very much.
Please can you explain why a Union Jack flying in the breeze is shown for a full 45 seconds about a minute from the end?
They didn't reply to my e-mail, but Bridget Dunne has kindly spoken to them on my behalf and they have confirmed they do _not_ have a far right agenda.
Post a Comment