Travis Dickerson Recording Studio Forum

Attack to London in a threshold of the summit of the G8,
has broken a new wave of democratic colonization,
has strengthened anticolonial resistance
and became significant event in struggle
with the international nazism and profascism.

The reason of terrorism in London.
Democracy in England is constructed on the basis of totalitarian
control over the person. Therefore the society supports
state policy and is out of internal political problems. Such society is used
by the government for promotion of colonization and development of Mother country.
It is not possible to defend antifascist and anticolonial opinions
in such system.

Terrorists who attacked London and terrorists which work under covering of London in their countries - are people with different points of view.
Terrorists who are supported by London are armed democrats in their native land, they are helpers to
London in it's democratic colonization, a treacherous column. London supports  dissidents specially
to destroy other states and colonize them.
These invited democrats regret about happened attacks to London directed
against democratic colonization of developing countries and the countries of the third world.

Rigid administrative selection of persons who define a policy of the state, and ideas discussed in a society. For realization of these problems the society and its citizens are controled.
In a totalitarian society there can not be equal rights for citizens, that we can see on an example of structure of authority in England.

Ideology of terrorism is the anticolonialism.
Against what ideology English government struggles?
And what ideology advances?
May be colonialism? Iraq?

I think, that the terrorism in England is connected with occupation of Iraq,
and London does not wish to disengage armies because it is possible to get
a loss of profit for the English companies in Iraq.
Whether war will have been thrown to the territory of England?  

HISTORY REPEATS
www.genevo.org/p2i.htm

thank you for overstating the obvious and following it with a play of your broken record.

i\'ll be around when you have something interesting and substantive to say.

With falling of English ideology of military colonization in Germany (in 1945) and with growth of national-liberation movements, distribution of ideology of democratic colonization had become an answer to the challenge of  the epoch. U.Cherchill was the founder of the international development of idea. The essence of the idea consisted in creation of democratic elections on the basis of interests of colonialists. Financial resources and the advanced political technologies provided visibility of the democratic elections and a victory of representatives of colonialists. Now the erroneousness of Cherchill's idea as a tool for suppression of anticolonialism is obvious on an example of civil and emancipating wars in Iraq. But the English government won't be able to put  U.Cherchill to prison, he has died.

we had elections and democracy long before Churchill... do a little research and stop trying to be so clever - get into the facts and worry less about the turn of your phrase.

people around the world for over 200 years have examined the american system of democracy and attempted in one way or another to apply the practice.  the world\'s first development of the concept of democracy was in Athens, by use of an Assembly and a Council.

research leads to greater understanding.  i don\'t claim to understand even 10% of the world\'s realities, but i do my best to research them if even only scratching the surface, before i attempt to speak on one of them.

later-gator

Englishmen have been put into frameworks of support of a struggle of colonialists,
it is also democracy. It is the democracy refined from reality.
The government of colonialists spreads nazism in a society,
having delegated to the England the maximum right - to define destiny of people.

In front of London there is a question: system democracy for the sake of safety
in the interests of colonialists, or freedom in the interests of people and releasing
occupied countries from democratic colonization.

US government reflects with an interest
about what will be in  London, the center of world ideology?
In fact if London fall, it will be necessary to change the policy.

England which made so much for nazism, has remained out of work after occupation of the Europe by nazis. Hitler not only ignored interests of England but also "put to the place" his neighbour. To Hitler it was enough, and further - to the East.
There was no second front. The England-American front was urgently opened and question about repartition of the Europe was rised then.

Hitler\'s policy was based on
political views of London in many respects. Hitler headed a policy of colonization.
So " the policy of  pacification" actually was a policy of the consent with
Hitler\'s actions, but it was replaced by policy of treachery to Hitler after, though
ideological views of London have not changed.

Iraq (2002) was disarmed and was ready to cooperate with the United Nations, S.Husejn was deceived, now terrorists protect the country from democratic colonialists.

1. The economy of Germany after defeat in the First World war was completely under the control of the English capital (reparation, credits).
By 1932 Englishmen did not know what is more favourably for England - credits or reparations, and democratic elections passed under the control of the English capital.
2. Hitler has won democratic elections owing to support of London.
Money come also directly from abroad: English oil king Deterding, a friend of Hoffmann and Rehberg, supplied Hitler with currency on a regular basis (he gave 10 million of dutch guldens once).
3 England never consider seriously to Hitler. Hitler was a hope as a force which is capable to control people.
4 When war began? Was Czechoslovakia occupied after partition of Poland? England initiated war.
5 Hitler was not going to occupy England. Hitler understood, that England is the leading colonial power, and England understood that there must be no friends in war for colonies.
Military actions against England had inconsistent character.
Luftvaffe never undertook concentrated attacks to the British radar stations, and they had huge value for defense of the country. Hitler counted, that having transferred bombardments on cities of England he will compel London to go for negotiations. Negotiations about what?
6. The second front was conducted in Africa in trying to solve colonial problems.
Only people\'s liberation movements and USSR battled against colonialism. For England the main thing was preservation of owned colonies and repartition of the Europe.
7. 60 million person was lost because of a colonial policy of England which come to deadlock.

your writing is rambling and disjointed but are you now somehow trying to lay blame for the loss of 60 million Jews down to England?  get a grip.

yes, there were individuals and companies in England and the US that supported Germany - at least early on.  there were those in France and other countries as well.  some supported Germany right to the end.  that does not mean that the governments of those same countries maintained support - they did not.  initially they tried to "wait and see" etc - and the US was brought into the war kicking and screaming as they didn\'t want any part of it at first.  it was seen as a European problem by many American people, because the scale of the atrocity was not known.

you cannot lay the blame for WWII and the loss of 60 million Jews down to England.  what you can rightly put it down to is the fanatical fundamentalism of a group of Germans who wanted Aryan domination.  much like the Islamic fundamentalists of today, however they managed to get their champion elected and started their strategy in a somewhat legitimate manner.  that didn\'t last long, though.

Falling of pro-English authority in democratic
protectorates approaches falling of authority in mother country.

In the English society where there is a leadership of mercenary interests
and concentration of authority at financial circles,
colonialists represent safety from acts of terrorism
as the basic condition of preservation of their democracy.
Safety is provided by indifference to colonized
people, unauthenticity of the information, neutralization of opposition,
development of political apathy in a society, the statement of fear for the life.

now there is something we can agree on.

England with the out-of-date antinational form of the board, being
in a precritical condition, being nuclear empire, represents
the basic danger to the world from itself.
Danger is represented also by the foreign policy of England, loosening
the peace relations, developing and aggravating political conflicts.
Before disarmament of England, with a purpose of prevention of occurrence armed
conflicts provoked by England, it is necessary to consider England as a possible aggressor.
It is necessary to conduct defending policy as protection against English colonialism
and to redirect weapons from politically illiterate conductors of war
to their source. England should know that it will not avoid responsibility any more
for kindling of war and for colonization. Disarmament of England
and transfering all authority to democratic bodies would remove military
intensity in the world.

Disarmament of England?!  now you\'re talking bull again.  ain\'t gonna happen and so far as the highest danger to world safety goes, two things are far higher a danger than dumpy old England - US Military Industrial Complex, and Extremist Fundamentalism insanity.

sorry - you spoke reason for a minute but then you dropped the thread of it and went back to bullshit propaganda and i\'m not gonna participate in that.