Zeitgeist

Never wanting to be a conspiracy theorist, I had always stayed away from the realms of those people who claimed that the Illuminati still held power over the world, or that 9/11 attacks were due to the government, but having watched Peter Joseph's "Zeitgeist", I am beginning to wonder.

The film opens with a dubious account of how many old-world religions have parallels with the Christ figure, with many following the star signs (12 star signs, 12 disciples, get it?) but that's only part one of this interesting look at the US government.

Part two delves deep into the lives of those survivors and news reporters in the days just after the 9/11 World Trade Centre terrorist attacks. Interestingly there is evidence to support the theory that perhaps, just perhaps it wasn't actual Al Quaeda that undertook this mission. After all, there are just too many inconsistencies and anomalies to ignore.

My initial view was one of pure scepticism but listening to a fire fighter tell of how there was a loud bang before the first plane hit, the fact that there were pictures of girders cut at a 45 degree angle (the same technique employed by demolition experts), pools of molten iron a week or two after the attacks (not caused by jet fuel - possibly Thermite compound), and the refusal of the government to launch a proper investigation in the aftermath of the bombings can certainly move me to tears over the poor souls who died in those buildings. Combined with interviews with a friend of one of the Rockafeller family, who swears he was told of a coming attack 11 months before it happened, it's getting much harder to sleep at night...


Check it out and make up your own mind. Life is about questioning everything that those in power want to tell you. It's the only way to see the real truth. Even if it is a conspiracy theory, it still raises a few questions such as why Bush had to appear alongside the Vice President instead of separately (to keep their stories straight?).

http://www.thezeitgeistmovementuk.com/

House Prices

At this precise moment in time, there are around 26 million homes in the United Kingdom, with prices that are so expensive that many first time buyers cannot afford anything more than a small studio flat - provided that they can provide the money (up to £40,000 for an apartment around London - i.e. up to 20%) which acts as a guarantee for the mortgage lenders.

The problem in England is that for several decades now houses have been seen as an increasingly attractive way of earning some quick money. It is not uncommon for people to make tens of thousands in a decade for simply sitting quiet with their properties, sometimes renting them out, but generally becoming richer in the long run than before.

However, the recession has seen some people becoming worried that their homes will not gain in value.

This has to be the most ridiculous concern ever. Sure - if the home is actually losing (a lot of) money then I could have some sympathy. Yet many people believed that they were simply entering into a business venture that would ensure they were well off in their retirement, or act as a way to generate capital which they otherwise could not earn.

Reality checks set in for people as they now realise than the property market is less buoyant than it was five years ago...

As Grant Shapps, the new coalition's Housing Minister stated recently, homes cannot be treated in the same manner as they were since the 1970's. Homes are meant to provide a roof over your head, not endear you to your bank manager. There are some people out there who just want to have a place to live, yet the artificially high house prices (thanks to the Conservative party when they were last in power with their familiar "greed is good" approach) have destroyed most average people's chance of getting anything like this. Thanks a lot parents and my previous generation. That's another fine mess you got me into!