media wars again ! - everyone wants to control what you look at - it gives them power. in fact this is almost the only power they have left - the regular channels of popular opinion having been depersonalised by the concrete freeways we now inhabit. yeah, i think they are not really that worried about the 'other side' getting too much air-time, because the majority dismiss them as cranks. what is more threatening is when the masses start drifting away from the main corporate controlled media outlets which perform the process of mass indoctrination. perhaps they think that pricing people out of the market and offering supermarket style mass consumer stations will keep the masses in the fold. am i wrong?

How does the anglo-saxon world control propaganda, and fight media turf wars? The answer is that we have very different (and vastly more sophisticated) methods compared to our backwards cousins in Europe.

Take the Israeli holocaust in Lebanon. The German authorities used the old nazi trick (Germany maintains all the 'best' media control laws introduced by the nazis) of exterminating dissenting propaganda at source. Videos (in German) showing actual images of Israeli atrocities carried out against the people of Lebanon were removed as soon as they were detected. More recently, Germany nazis (the modern Blair kind) raided a site hosting user comment in support of the Iraq resistance, and demanded that all video materials NOT approved by US military forces in Iraq be permanently banned.

THAT IS HOW THEY DO THINGS IN EUROPE. The jackboot on the head wasn't a nazi invention, but standard practice on that continent. Indeed, most european nations will happily punish their citizens severely if they publicly diss their leaders.

Now when it comes to media turf wars, the word to note is MONOPOLY. Europe likes the model of monolithic, all powerful, media authorities that prevent competition from anyone not in the club. Human Rights be damned, the Europeans are corrupt, and proud of it. Monolithic Media Authority pays off the politicians, and the politicians make competing illegal.

We are vastly smarter in the anglo-saxon world (which is why anglo-saxons are dominant today, NOT europe). An apparantly free media market generates vastly more revenue, by constantly inventing new markets (the europeans hate and fear the concept of 'new', creating a situation where the old guard, no matter how out of touch, rules all the corrupt mechanisms used to protect themselves).

An example. The BT monopoly Prestel, the French Telecom monopoly Minitel, vs the Internet. Monopoly = brain dead morons making some money, no matter how crap the product. The Internet, years after the failure of Minitel/Prestel, showed the power of unlocking Human potential, unfettered by corporate control (the corporations followed later, of course).

Blair and Bush may like the money, but the propaganda control counts for more. While I am talking to a handful of left-wing liberal types, the English language propaganda success of the Internet skews MASSIVELY in favour of the pro-war right. The internet has the downside of allowing people like myself to talk, but in comparison, Blair's people outweigh us many many thousands to one.

You see, the anglo-saxon world learnt to master so-called soft touch propaganda, not the kick in the head variety used, for instance, by the zionist regime of Germany. Blair's psychological warfare experts leave Europe for dead. The existing model of the Internet works near perfectly for Bush/Blair and their people. As for the squeaking rats, well if they need squashing, they can always be 'exterminated' on a case by case scenario.

So Blair will continue to 'champion' the free model of Youtube, etc, while Youtube simply changes its policy, and self-censors all those nasty anti-blair videos themselves (Latuff being a recent victim). What is it that is said about fascism, and the growth of corporate control? Why should Blair censor (allowing us to see him for what he is) when the corporations that get the vast majority of web hits can censor on his behalf?

Rule by Europe does indeed stink, because that place has no pride, and is just one massive corrupt cesspool when it comes to business, including all forms of media ownership. However, at least their motivation is just pathetic protection of failed business models using political corruption so the old guard can maintain their wealth. Blair fights for his vision of the Internet, because he knows that his methods produce the most favourable outcome for his genocidal war plans. We, suprise suprise, get screwed either way.

I am as in favour of the dissemination of, say, 'terrorstorm' or 'loose change' as the rest of you. However, *I* am aware that using corporate means to do this lulls our movement into a false sense of security, and a reliance on means that can and will be snatched away without a moments notice (and I am referring to sites like Youtube themselves banning such material) is suicidal. On the other hand, distribution mechanisms that already ignore any concept of state control (like bittorrent) need to be advanced in preparation for the day when they are all we have. Blair wants you to feed of the Google, Myspace, and Yahoo 'teat' until that is all you know how to do.

Remember, crude censorship 'hones' the opposition. However,Blair is not going to do our job for us- he is far too clever for that. Instead, Blair prefers the tool of targetted propaganda, propaganda that often seems anti-Blair (because it says what you want to hear), but carries a razor-blade hidden within the apple. The tiny number of anti-Blair sites are also excellent places for Blair's people to gather intelligence, and recruit 'patsies'. True activists can also be targetted via standard FUD tactics. If a potential anti-Blair activist leader is 'strangled at birth' (ie., trolled into a state of despair, causing them to give up before they start), Blair has a major victory.

So, do you really think Blair is going to support the dismantling of our "watering holes"? I think not.