The decades long pursuit of Iraqi oil is now at an end.
Bids have been submitted for contracts to bring Iraqi oil to the global market. The first contract has just been awarded, and guess who it went to? British Petroleum.
It's all a farce. We've bombed Iraq over decades, with depleted uranium, over non-existent WMDs, to reduce the population and their will to resist an imperial oil grab.
And now today, Iraqis are encouraged to celebrate as some US military forces leave while their oil is being handed over to BP (which started out as Anglo-Persian Oil Company and then became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company).
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas".
And not forgetting all that lovely sand.
==========================
From http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/06/30/live-oil-companies-bid-for-iraqs-oil-fields/
BP and CNPC have won the right to help Iraq develop the Rumaila field. The UK and Chinese companies beat ExxonMobil, the US oil company, which had partnered with Petronas, the Malaysian oil company. BP clinched the contract when it agreed to reduce its fee per barrel from $3.99 to $2.
Today marks the beginning of a long-awaited journey. Braving sand storms and the continued violence on Iraq’s streets, oil executives have come to Baghdad to make their bids. It is the first time since nationalisation four decades ago that international oil companies will be allowed back into the country.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
HOLBROOKE GIVES UP ON ERADICATION OF AFGHAN OPIUM FARMING
Why?
Becasue Bilderberger Holbrooke has been told told to do so, probably by his fellow Bilderberger George Soros.
Just before 9/11 the Taliban had almost eradicated Afghan opium.
But within a few years of the invasion bythe drug smugglers the coalition of the killing the willing the Afghan opium production was upto record levels.
Holbrooke has decided to focus instead on the chemicals used to process the opium into heroin. This makes it easier for the drug dealers because staff can be bribed and/or ordered to allow stuff like chemicals in and out but to make heroin you need opium which needs to be grown in Afghanistan and Holbrooke is giving up on that most important part of the heroin production process.
How did the Taliban eradicate opium farming?
==============================
From http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/27/us-gives-up-on-eradicating-afghanistans-opium/
US gives up on eradicating Afghanistan’s opium
By Stephen C. Webster
Published: June 27, 2009
Updated 17 hours ago
Since the United States invaded Afghanistan, the country’s number one cash crop, opium, has repeatedly broken production records. By some estimates, the occupied territory now supplies some 90 percent of the world’s poppies.
So far, eradication efforts have merely fueled the Taliban’s coffers and driven civilian farmers further outside of U.S. influence. Because of this, the United States has formed a new strategy in the fight against the crop: They are giving up.
“The Western policies against the opium crop, the poppy crop, have been a failure,” said Richard Holbrooke, America’s envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, speaking to a G8 conference on Afghanistan.
Becasue Bilderberger Holbrooke has been told told to do so, probably by his fellow Bilderberger George Soros.
Just before 9/11 the Taliban had almost eradicated Afghan opium.
But within a few years of the invasion by
Holbrooke has decided to focus instead on the chemicals used to process the opium into heroin. This makes it easier for the drug dealers because staff can be bribed and/or ordered to allow stuff like chemicals in and out but to make heroin you need opium which needs to be grown in Afghanistan and Holbrooke is giving up on that most important part of the heroin production process.
How did the Taliban eradicate opium farming?
==============================
From http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/27/us-gives-up-on-eradicating-afghanistans-opium/
US gives up on eradicating Afghanistan’s opium
By Stephen C. Webster
Published: June 27, 2009
Updated 17 hours ago
Since the United States invaded Afghanistan, the country’s number one cash crop, opium, has repeatedly broken production records. By some estimates, the occupied territory now supplies some 90 percent of the world’s poppies.
So far, eradication efforts have merely fueled the Taliban’s coffers and driven civilian farmers further outside of U.S. influence. Because of this, the United States has formed a new strategy in the fight against the crop: They are giving up.
“The Western policies against the opium crop, the poppy crop, have been a failure,” said Richard Holbrooke, America’s envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, speaking to a G8 conference on Afghanistan.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
WHY THE MILITARIZATION OF TENNIS?
When I was a young lad watching Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe and playing tennis against myself on the neighbours back garden wall tennis was full of one-handed cross court backhands and serve-and-volleys.
Nowadays tennis players have weapons.
I heard one commentator recently say on BBC, "...that's a great weapon to have in his armoury".
Say what?
I hope he was talking about a forehand down the line.
Within a few years yoga positions will be 'weapons'.
Love will be a 'weapon'
Everything will be a weapon, and you will be encouraged to believe that you are permanently at war with everyone, even with yourself, and that you need big government to protect you, even from yourself.
Nowadays tennis players have weapons.
I heard one commentator recently say on BBC, "...that's a great weapon to have in his armoury".
Say what?
I hope he was talking about a forehand down the line.
Within a few years yoga positions will be 'weapons'.
Love will be a 'weapon'
Everything will be a weapon, and you will be encouraged to believe that you are permanently at war with everyone, even with yourself, and that you need big government to protect you, even from yourself.
THE CURIOUS RETURN OF PETER MANDELSON
Peter Mandelson was brought into Brown's cabinet well before the MPs expenses story broke.
He was appointed Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform on 3 October 2008. There were two events in the world and the UK just before then; the Russia-Georgia war and the decision to bail out the banks.
So why was Mandelson drafted into the cabinet, and why did Mandelson accept?
One minute Mandelson was EU Trade Commissioner, the next he was UK Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (oh and not forgetting his life peerage).
So why did Mandelson resign?
From http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1459
So no specific reason given there.
Who succeeded Mandelson?
From the same press release,
So Mandelson's replacement Ashton got the Treaty of Lisbon through the House of Lords.
Looking back now, Mandelson's curious return went under my radar at the time, and it is only now after he's saved Brown's bacon and kept Brown in Number 10 that something about his return indicates they knew long before everyone else that Mandelson would be required in the Cabinet.
So my question is, did Brown and Mandelson both foresee the shit hitting the fan at least 6 months in advance? If so, what did he know and how did they know it?
He was appointed Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform on 3 October 2008. There were two events in the world and the UK just before then; the Russia-Georgia war and the decision to bail out the banks.
So why was Mandelson drafted into the cabinet, and why did Mandelson accept?
One minute Mandelson was EU Trade Commissioner, the next he was UK Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (oh and not forgetting his life peerage).
So why did Mandelson resign?
From http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1459
The member of the Commission responsible for trade, Peter Mandelson, has today submitted his resignation to the Commission President, José Manuel Barroso. Mr Mandelson resigns to accept the invitation by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to join the government.
So no specific reason given there.
Who succeeded Mandelson?
From the same press release,
Catherine Margaret Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, PC, an economist by training, was until now a Labour member of the UK House of Lords, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council.
She was previously Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Education and Skills, Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, where her responsibilities included the trade implications of legal professions.
On 28 June 2007, she was promoted to the Cabinet as Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council. In 2008, she was responsible for the successful passage of the Lisbon Treaty in the House of Lords.
So Mandelson's replacement Ashton got the Treaty of Lisbon through the House of Lords.
Looking back now, Mandelson's curious return went under my radar at the time, and it is only now after he's saved Brown's bacon and kept Brown in Number 10 that something about his return indicates they knew long before everyone else that Mandelson would be required in the Cabinet.
So my question is, did Brown and Mandelson both foresee the shit hitting the fan at least 6 months in advance? If so, what did he know and how did they know it?
AT LAST SOME SENSE IN THE BRITISH MAINSTREAM MEDIA
A British journalist writing in a British mainstream newspaper is at last talking some sense about the EU. Tom Utley writes in The Daily Mail that he is 95% convinced there is a conspiracy to get us into the EU and the conspiracy involves Mandelson, Brown and Blair. However, Utley does not mention the B word ; Bilderberg.
All three of the named conspirators are Bilderbergers.
Brown reneged on a very public promise and signed us over to the EU.
Blair wants to become, and I predict will become, President of the EU.
Mandelson is the EU, with his direct connections into the Rothschild banking dynasty who are driving the formation of a world government by financing all the chaos and destruction and trying to trick us into thinking we need a world government to stop all the chaos and destruction.
The treason to sign us over to the EU is the greatest scandal of all time, because the EU is a Nazi EU, you know the same Nazis we fought in WW2. It was a plan of the Nazis to implement a post-war pan-European government as laid out in their Red House Report. The Nazis were supported and financed by certain Wall Street and City of London bankers such as the Rockefellers who then went on to organize and finance the infamous Bilderberg meetings. And the EU was agreed upon at the 1955 Bilderberg meeting. One link between the Nazis and Bilderberg is Hermann Abs, Hitler's Banker, distributor of Marshal funds and chief of Deutsche Bank post-WW2.
============================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1195647/I-dont-accept-Diana-murdered-moon-landing-faked-But-theres-conspiracy-theory-I-believe-.html
Most conspiracy theories leave me cold. I've never believed for one second that Princess Diana was murdered by MI5 on the orders of the Duke of Edinburgh. I'm almost certain that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.
And though I've occasionally had my doubts, I'm pretty sure that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin really did land on the Moon, 40 years ago next month, rather than mocking up the mission in a film studio on planet Earth.
But there's one theory doing the rounds which fits the facts so exactly that I'm 95 per cent convinced it must be true.
Peter Mandelson
Power: Peter Mandelson tried to keep potential rebels to Gordon Brown on board
I first saw it floated on Sunday by my friend and former colleague Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP who became a YouTube sensation for his masterly demolition of Gordon Brown's economic policy, delivered in the European Parliament in the presence of a squirming Prime Minister.
This is the theory, as he puts it with brutal simplicity: 'Lord Mandelson is destroying Labour for the sake of the EU.'
In a nutshell, Mr Hannan believes the newly appointed First Secretary is so desperate to see a European superstate established that he is determined to prop up our increasingly unpopular Prime Minister until after the re-run of the Irish referendum, which will take place in October.
I see no flaw in his reasoning. After all, Lord Mandelson is as well aware as the rest of us that the longer Mr Brown clings on to office, the grimmer Labour's electoral chances look (and anyone banking on an economic recovery to save the party's bacon clearly hasn't been listening to the forecasts of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development or the Governor of the Bank of England).
Why, then, did the man so aptly nicknamed the Prince of Darkness step in to save his old enemy, rallying the Blairites to stick by Mr Brown after Labour's meltdown in the local and European elections?
With one snap of his fingers, he could have sent the Prime Minister packing. At his command, at least half a dozen other disaffected Ministers would have joined Hazel Blears, Caroline Flint, James Purnell and the others who resigned in the Pygmies' Revolt, making Mr Brown's position untenable.
But the Mandelson fingers remained unsnapped. Instead, his Lordship deployed all his enormous powers of persuasion to keep the potential rebels on board. Why?
I said earlier I was only 95 per cent convinced by Mr Hannan's theory. That's because 5 per cent of me believes it possible that Mandelson rescued Brown for the sheer camp delight of all those fancy titles he was offered, and the heady prospect of a few months as effectively the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
I've no doubt that it gives him a buzz when he looks at himself in the shaving mirror each morning and thinks: 'Hello, handsome - or may I call you the Rt Hon Baron Mandelson of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the County of Durham, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council?'
There's a ring of truth, too, about the assertion in this week's Spectator that he made it a condition of shoring up Mr Brown that the Iraq War inquiry should be held in secret, so as to protect Blair's reputation. After all, he was the Dr Frankenstein who created the 'Brand Blair' monster - and none of us likes to see our creations publicly destroyed.
But I reckon it does Mandelson less than justice to suggest that personal vanity and the chance to do a favour for the unspeakable Mr Blair were his chief motives for risking the annihilation of his grandfather's Labour Party, to which he has devoted his life since he left the Young Communists.
True, he may be a 'slithering Machiavelli', as this paper described him yesterday. But on one issue he has never wavered: he remains a passionate believer in an EU superstate as the best hope for the continent's future - a conviction that has grown even stronger over his past four years as a European Commissioner, riding first class on the Brussels gravy train.
Today, only two obstacles stand in the way of turning his lifelong dream of a superstate into reality. One is the referendum in Ireland - but then the Irish have been offered so many concessions since they voted No to Lisbon that they are thought almost certain to vote Yes this time.
The other is the risk of an election in Britain before the Irish have had their say - bringing victory for the Tories, who have promised to hold a referendum here if the amended Lisbon Treaty hasn't been ratified by all 27 member states by the time they come to power.
So all that Lord Mandelson has to do to achieve his dream - perhaps with Blair as the first President of Europe and he himself as chef de cabinet - is to keep Mr Brown clinging on for just four precious months. For he knows he can rely upon the Prime Minister to ignore the wishes of the people.
If you ask me, what we are witnessing here is the greatest conspiracy against our democracy in my 55-year lifetime. If it succeeds, we can kiss goodbye to the British subject's ancient right to have a say in how our country is governed.
Gordon Brown
Tony Blair
Neither Gordon Brown or Tony Blair wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty
In my column last week, when I cited a few examples from the list of Mr Brown's brazen lies, I absent-mindedly omitted his most outrageous whopper of the lot.
This is a lie, first told by Mr Blair and repeated by his successor, which has been used to perpetrate a fraud against the electorate a thousand times more serious even than the Commons expenses scandal, for it strikes at the heart of our democracy.
I mean, of course, the monstrous fiction that there is any material difference between the Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution upon which Labour unequivocally promised a referendum in its last election manifesto.
Now, I'm not a baby. I understand there may be plenty of reasons why governments fail to keep their election promises. After all, circumstances may change, sometimes the money isn't there and often what looked like a good idea turns out to be impracticable.
But no such excuses apply to Mr Brown's decision to go ahead and ratify the Lisbon Treaty without giving us the promised referendum. The money was there, the printing presses were available for the ballot papers, the polling stations were ready and waiting.
But no. Neither Blair nor Brown wanted a referendum, only because they feared it wouldn't give the verdict they sought. So they simply fell back on a lie.
The only remotely comparable case I can think of was that of H'Angus the monkey, the joke candidate for the mayoralty of Lord Mandelson's Hartlepool, who stood on a promise to distribute free bananas to the town's schoolchildren.
No sooner was he elected - to his amazement and everybody else's - than he tried to wriggle out his pledge, suggesting it had just been a joke.
Were Blair and Brown just joking when they promised us our referendum? Forget the economic crisis and the obscene greed of the bankers. Forget all those pilfering politicians who've helped themselves to our money. With the right reforms, something can be done about them.
But in just four months' time, if Lord Mandelson gets his slithery way, a Government enjoying the support of only 15 per cent of British voters in the Euro-elections will sign away to an alien power our right to choose our own policies on a vast range of issues, from migration to energy.
How can our ministers preach to the Iranians about the conduct of their elections, when they've make such a mockery of our own?
All three of the named conspirators are Bilderbergers.
Brown reneged on a very public promise and signed us over to the EU.
Blair wants to become, and I predict will become, President of the EU.
Mandelson is the EU, with his direct connections into the Rothschild banking dynasty who are driving the formation of a world government by financing all the chaos and destruction and trying to trick us into thinking we need a world government to stop all the chaos and destruction.
The treason to sign us over to the EU is the greatest scandal of all time, because the EU is a Nazi EU, you know the same Nazis we fought in WW2. It was a plan of the Nazis to implement a post-war pan-European government as laid out in their Red House Report. The Nazis were supported and financed by certain Wall Street and City of London bankers such as the Rockefellers who then went on to organize and finance the infamous Bilderberg meetings. And the EU was agreed upon at the 1955 Bilderberg meeting. One link between the Nazis and Bilderberg is Hermann Abs, Hitler's Banker, distributor of Marshal funds and chief of Deutsche Bank post-WW2.
============================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1195647/I-dont-accept-Diana-murdered-moon-landing-faked-But-theres-conspiracy-theory-I-believe-.html
Most conspiracy theories leave me cold. I've never believed for one second that Princess Diana was murdered by MI5 on the orders of the Duke of Edinburgh. I'm almost certain that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.
And though I've occasionally had my doubts, I'm pretty sure that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin really did land on the Moon, 40 years ago next month, rather than mocking up the mission in a film studio on planet Earth.
But there's one theory doing the rounds which fits the facts so exactly that I'm 95 per cent convinced it must be true.
Peter Mandelson
Power: Peter Mandelson tried to keep potential rebels to Gordon Brown on board
I first saw it floated on Sunday by my friend and former colleague Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP who became a YouTube sensation for his masterly demolition of Gordon Brown's economic policy, delivered in the European Parliament in the presence of a squirming Prime Minister.
This is the theory, as he puts it with brutal simplicity: 'Lord Mandelson is destroying Labour for the sake of the EU.'
In a nutshell, Mr Hannan believes the newly appointed First Secretary is so desperate to see a European superstate established that he is determined to prop up our increasingly unpopular Prime Minister until after the re-run of the Irish referendum, which will take place in October.
I see no flaw in his reasoning. After all, Lord Mandelson is as well aware as the rest of us that the longer Mr Brown clings on to office, the grimmer Labour's electoral chances look (and anyone banking on an economic recovery to save the party's bacon clearly hasn't been listening to the forecasts of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development or the Governor of the Bank of England).
Why, then, did the man so aptly nicknamed the Prince of Darkness step in to save his old enemy, rallying the Blairites to stick by Mr Brown after Labour's meltdown in the local and European elections?
With one snap of his fingers, he could have sent the Prime Minister packing. At his command, at least half a dozen other disaffected Ministers would have joined Hazel Blears, Caroline Flint, James Purnell and the others who resigned in the Pygmies' Revolt, making Mr Brown's position untenable.
But the Mandelson fingers remained unsnapped. Instead, his Lordship deployed all his enormous powers of persuasion to keep the potential rebels on board. Why?
I said earlier I was only 95 per cent convinced by Mr Hannan's theory. That's because 5 per cent of me believes it possible that Mandelson rescued Brown for the sheer camp delight of all those fancy titles he was offered, and the heady prospect of a few months as effectively the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
I've no doubt that it gives him a buzz when he looks at himself in the shaving mirror each morning and thinks: 'Hello, handsome - or may I call you the Rt Hon Baron Mandelson of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the County of Durham, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council?'
There's a ring of truth, too, about the assertion in this week's Spectator that he made it a condition of shoring up Mr Brown that the Iraq War inquiry should be held in secret, so as to protect Blair's reputation. After all, he was the Dr Frankenstein who created the 'Brand Blair' monster - and none of us likes to see our creations publicly destroyed.
But I reckon it does Mandelson less than justice to suggest that personal vanity and the chance to do a favour for the unspeakable Mr Blair were his chief motives for risking the annihilation of his grandfather's Labour Party, to which he has devoted his life since he left the Young Communists.
True, he may be a 'slithering Machiavelli', as this paper described him yesterday. But on one issue he has never wavered: he remains a passionate believer in an EU superstate as the best hope for the continent's future - a conviction that has grown even stronger over his past four years as a European Commissioner, riding first class on the Brussels gravy train.
Today, only two obstacles stand in the way of turning his lifelong dream of a superstate into reality. One is the referendum in Ireland - but then the Irish have been offered so many concessions since they voted No to Lisbon that they are thought almost certain to vote Yes this time.
The other is the risk of an election in Britain before the Irish have had their say - bringing victory for the Tories, who have promised to hold a referendum here if the amended Lisbon Treaty hasn't been ratified by all 27 member states by the time they come to power.
So all that Lord Mandelson has to do to achieve his dream - perhaps with Blair as the first President of Europe and he himself as chef de cabinet - is to keep Mr Brown clinging on for just four precious months. For he knows he can rely upon the Prime Minister to ignore the wishes of the people.
If you ask me, what we are witnessing here is the greatest conspiracy against our democracy in my 55-year lifetime. If it succeeds, we can kiss goodbye to the British subject's ancient right to have a say in how our country is governed.
Gordon Brown
Tony Blair
Neither Gordon Brown or Tony Blair wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty
In my column last week, when I cited a few examples from the list of Mr Brown's brazen lies, I absent-mindedly omitted his most outrageous whopper of the lot.
This is a lie, first told by Mr Blair and repeated by his successor, which has been used to perpetrate a fraud against the electorate a thousand times more serious even than the Commons expenses scandal, for it strikes at the heart of our democracy.
I mean, of course, the monstrous fiction that there is any material difference between the Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution upon which Labour unequivocally promised a referendum in its last election manifesto.
Now, I'm not a baby. I understand there may be plenty of reasons why governments fail to keep their election promises. After all, circumstances may change, sometimes the money isn't there and often what looked like a good idea turns out to be impracticable.
But no such excuses apply to Mr Brown's decision to go ahead and ratify the Lisbon Treaty without giving us the promised referendum. The money was there, the printing presses were available for the ballot papers, the polling stations were ready and waiting.
But no. Neither Blair nor Brown wanted a referendum, only because they feared it wouldn't give the verdict they sought. So they simply fell back on a lie.
The only remotely comparable case I can think of was that of H'Angus the monkey, the joke candidate for the mayoralty of Lord Mandelson's Hartlepool, who stood on a promise to distribute free bananas to the town's schoolchildren.
No sooner was he elected - to his amazement and everybody else's - than he tried to wriggle out his pledge, suggesting it had just been a joke.
Were Blair and Brown just joking when they promised us our referendum? Forget the economic crisis and the obscene greed of the bankers. Forget all those pilfering politicians who've helped themselves to our money. With the right reforms, something can be done about them.
But in just four months' time, if Lord Mandelson gets his slithery way, a Government enjoying the support of only 15 per cent of British voters in the Euro-elections will sign away to an alien power our right to choose our own policies on a vast range of issues, from migration to energy.
How can our ministers preach to the Iranians about the conduct of their elections, when they've make such a mockery of our own?
WHAT ELSE ARE THE ROTHSCHILDS NOT TELLING THEIR CHIEF ARCHIVIST?
The FT is reporting that the Rothschilds used slaves as collateral in a deal with a slave owner.
Yet the Rothschild chief archivist knew nothing about it!
==============================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c0f5014-628c-11de-b1c9-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=34c8a8a6-2f7b-11da-8b51-00000e2511c8,print=yes.html
Rothschild and Freshfields founders had links to slavery, papers reveal
By Carola Hoyos
Published: June 26 2009 23:32 | Last updated: June 26 2009 23:32
Two of the biggest names in the City of London had previously undisclosed links to slavery in the British colonies, documents seen by the Financial Times have revealed.
Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the banking family’s 19th-century patriarch, and James William Freshfield, founder of Freshfields, the top City law firm, benefited financially from slavery, records from the National Archives show, even though both have often been portrayed as opponents of slavery.
Far from being a matter of distant history, slavery remains a highly contentious issue in the US, where Rothschild and Freshfields are both active.
Companies alleged to have links to past slave injustices have come under pressure to make restitution.
JPMorgan, the investment bank, set up a $5m scholarship fund for black students studying in Louisiana after apologising in 2005 for the company’s historic links to slavery.
The archival documents have already prompted one of the banks named in the records to take action in the US.
When the FT approached Royal Bank of Scotland with information about its predecessor’s links with slavery, the bank researched the claim, updated its own archives and amended the disclosures of past slave connections that it had previously lodged with the Chicago authorities.
But it is the disclosures about Mr Rothschild and Mr Freshfield that are likely to prompt the biggest stir.
In the case of Mr Rothschild, the documents reveal for the first time that he made personal gains by using slaves as collateral in banking dealings with a slave owner.
This will surprise those familiar with his role in organising the loan that funded the UK government’s bail-out of British slave owners when colonial slavery was abolished in the 1830s. It was the biggest bail-out of an industry as a percentage of annual government expenditure – dwarfing last year’s rescue of the banking sector.
The chief archivist of the Rothschild family papers, Melanie Aspey, reacted with disbelief when first told of the contents of the records, saying she had never seen such links before.
Niall Ferguson, Laurence A.Tisch professor of history at Harvard and author ofThe World’s Banker: A History of the House of Rothschild, said the documents showed “how pervasive slavery was in the structure of British wealth in 1830”.
In Mr Freshfield’s case, the records reveal that he and his sons had several slave-owner clients, mostly based in the Caribbean. The lawyers acted as trustees of the owners’ estates and in one case tried to claim unpaid legal fees for the firm through the government scheme set up to compensate owners after abolition.
Nick Draper, a University College London academic who examined the documents, which will now form the basis of a comprehensive British slavery database at UCL, said the records would hopefully promote a better understanding of of the significance of slavery in Britain.
“We need to fill the gaps between those who deny slavery’s role and those who believe Britain was built entirely on the blood of slaves,” he said.
Both Rothschild, the bank, and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer were quick to point to their predecessors’ anti-slavery credentials.
Rothschild said Nathan Mayer Rothschild had been a prominent civil liberties campaigner with many like-minded associates and “against this background, these allegations appear inconsistent and misrepresent the ethos of the man and his business”.
Freshfields said James William Freshfield was an active member of the Church Missionary Society, “which was committed to ... the abolition of the slave trade”.
Apologies and acknowledgements
Several institutions have apologised for, or acknowledged, their links to slavery including:
●In March 2002, Deadria C. Farmer-Paellmann, a lawyer and activist, launched an unsuccessful legal action against Aetna , a healthcare benefits company, and others for unjust enrichment through slavery. Legislation in California and Illinois prompted several companies to research their past and some to apologise and make atonement gestures.
●In mid-2000 Aetna, prompted by Ms Farmer-Paellmann, was one of the first to apologise for insurance policies written on slaves 140 years earlier.
●In 2002, New York Life, the insurer, donated documents about the insurance it sold to slave owners in the 1840s to a New York library. It also backed educational efforts.
●In 2005 JPMorgan, the investment bank, apologised that two of its predecessors in Louisiana – Citizens Bank and Canal Bank – had mortgaged slaves. The bank made its research public and set up a $5m scholarship fund for African- American pupils.
●Lehman Brothers apologised in 2005 for its predecessors’ links to slavery, while Bank of America said it regretted any actions its predecessors might have taken to support or tolerate slavery.
Wachovia Bank, since acquired by Wells Fargo, also apologised for its predecessors having owned and profited from slaves. It set up a programme offering $1bn in loans for black car dealerships.
●In October 2001 students at Yale University pointed out its past links with slavery. The university noted it had already founded the Gilder-Lehrman centre for the study of slavery.
Brown University has set up a commission to look into links with slavery and how it should make amends.
●In 2006 Tony Blair, prime minister, expressed “deep sorrow” for the UK’s role in the slave trade.
●Last week the US Senate unanimously passed a resolution apologising for slavery and segregation.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Yet the Rothschild chief archivist knew nothing about it!
==============================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c0f5014-628c-11de-b1c9-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=34c8a8a6-2f7b-11da-8b51-00000e2511c8,print=yes.html
Rothschild and Freshfields founders had links to slavery, papers reveal
By Carola Hoyos
Published: June 26 2009 23:32 | Last updated: June 26 2009 23:32
Two of the biggest names in the City of London had previously undisclosed links to slavery in the British colonies, documents seen by the Financial Times have revealed.
Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the banking family’s 19th-century patriarch, and James William Freshfield, founder of Freshfields, the top City law firm, benefited financially from slavery, records from the National Archives show, even though both have often been portrayed as opponents of slavery.
Far from being a matter of distant history, slavery remains a highly contentious issue in the US, where Rothschild and Freshfields are both active.
Companies alleged to have links to past slave injustices have come under pressure to make restitution.
JPMorgan, the investment bank, set up a $5m scholarship fund for black students studying in Louisiana after apologising in 2005 for the company’s historic links to slavery.
The archival documents have already prompted one of the banks named in the records to take action in the US.
When the FT approached Royal Bank of Scotland with information about its predecessor’s links with slavery, the bank researched the claim, updated its own archives and amended the disclosures of past slave connections that it had previously lodged with the Chicago authorities.
But it is the disclosures about Mr Rothschild and Mr Freshfield that are likely to prompt the biggest stir.
In the case of Mr Rothschild, the documents reveal for the first time that he made personal gains by using slaves as collateral in banking dealings with a slave owner.
This will surprise those familiar with his role in organising the loan that funded the UK government’s bail-out of British slave owners when colonial slavery was abolished in the 1830s. It was the biggest bail-out of an industry as a percentage of annual government expenditure – dwarfing last year’s rescue of the banking sector.
The chief archivist of the Rothschild family papers, Melanie Aspey, reacted with disbelief when first told of the contents of the records, saying she had never seen such links before.
Niall Ferguson, Laurence A.Tisch professor of history at Harvard and author ofThe World’s Banker: A History of the House of Rothschild, said the documents showed “how pervasive slavery was in the structure of British wealth in 1830”.
In Mr Freshfield’s case, the records reveal that he and his sons had several slave-owner clients, mostly based in the Caribbean. The lawyers acted as trustees of the owners’ estates and in one case tried to claim unpaid legal fees for the firm through the government scheme set up to compensate owners after abolition.
Nick Draper, a University College London academic who examined the documents, which will now form the basis of a comprehensive British slavery database at UCL, said the records would hopefully promote a better understanding of of the significance of slavery in Britain.
“We need to fill the gaps between those who deny slavery’s role and those who believe Britain was built entirely on the blood of slaves,” he said.
Both Rothschild, the bank, and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer were quick to point to their predecessors’ anti-slavery credentials.
Rothschild said Nathan Mayer Rothschild had been a prominent civil liberties campaigner with many like-minded associates and “against this background, these allegations appear inconsistent and misrepresent the ethos of the man and his business”.
Freshfields said James William Freshfield was an active member of the Church Missionary Society, “which was committed to ... the abolition of the slave trade”.
Apologies and acknowledgements
Several institutions have apologised for, or acknowledged, their links to slavery including:
●In March 2002, Deadria C. Farmer-Paellmann, a lawyer and activist, launched an unsuccessful legal action against Aetna , a healthcare benefits company, and others for unjust enrichment through slavery. Legislation in California and Illinois prompted several companies to research their past and some to apologise and make atonement gestures.
●In mid-2000 Aetna, prompted by Ms Farmer-Paellmann, was one of the first to apologise for insurance policies written on slaves 140 years earlier.
●In 2002, New York Life, the insurer, donated documents about the insurance it sold to slave owners in the 1840s to a New York library. It also backed educational efforts.
●In 2005 JPMorgan, the investment bank, apologised that two of its predecessors in Louisiana – Citizens Bank and Canal Bank – had mortgaged slaves. The bank made its research public and set up a $5m scholarship fund for African- American pupils.
●Lehman Brothers apologised in 2005 for its predecessors’ links to slavery, while Bank of America said it regretted any actions its predecessors might have taken to support or tolerate slavery.
Wachovia Bank, since acquired by Wells Fargo, also apologised for its predecessors having owned and profited from slaves. It set up a programme offering $1bn in loans for black car dealerships.
●In October 2001 students at Yale University pointed out its past links with slavery. The university noted it had already founded the Gilder-Lehrman centre for the study of slavery.
Brown University has set up a commission to look into links with slavery and how it should make amends.
●In 2006 Tony Blair, prime minister, expressed “deep sorrow” for the UK’s role in the slave trade.
●Last week the US Senate unanimously passed a resolution apologising for slavery and segregation.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
W AND IRAN
W is Oliver Stone's look at the rise and Presidency of George W Bush, the erstwhile President of the USA who went into Iraq and Afghanistan believing it would all be over by Christmas, but guess what; it's not by a long way.
If you want to know what is going on in Iran I would recommend watching W.
Why?
Because about half way into the film there is a scene in which W, Cheney, Rice and a few other key members of Bush's administration are sat around a desk discussing how they can convince the American public to support an invasion of Iraq. They are struggling for ideas that would work, when Cheney begins to clarify the situation regarding world oil supplies to remind those present (including the audience) just how important an invasion of Iraq is.
With a big map of the Middle East and the Caspian basin to work with, Cheney slaps a few stars and stripes, representing military bases, onto the map, specifically in Iraq stating that Iraq is "where the real prize lies" (a quote from his speech to the Petroleum Institute). When Cheney has finished there is but one country, lying right in the middle of the map, that does not have any stars and stripes in it.
And what is that country?
IRAN!
Stone does not mention PNAC or A Clean Break, but there are hints and references. One such hint that there was a conspiracy to lead W into war for other reasons is a scene at a meal in The White House, at which are present Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and a few others. The meal is taking place a significant time after the invasion of Iraq and W is demanding where the WMDs are, how could the intel be so wrong, who is responsible? A rep of the CIA is there and he accepts the blame and resigns. The camera then sweeps around the table to focus on the faces of those present and they all wear a guilty but relieved and gleeful face that they got away with it.
Stone obviously believes that W is innocent of all charges and that he was duped by "the boss" (in the film W calls Cheney "boss").
But surely the POTUS cannot be so manipulated? You'd better believe it, baby. You'd better believe it!
If you want to know what is going on in Iran I would recommend watching W.
Why?
Because about half way into the film there is a scene in which W, Cheney, Rice and a few other key members of Bush's administration are sat around a desk discussing how they can convince the American public to support an invasion of Iraq. They are struggling for ideas that would work, when Cheney begins to clarify the situation regarding world oil supplies to remind those present (including the audience) just how important an invasion of Iraq is.
With a big map of the Middle East and the Caspian basin to work with, Cheney slaps a few stars and stripes, representing military bases, onto the map, specifically in Iraq stating that Iraq is "where the real prize lies" (a quote from his speech to the Petroleum Institute). When Cheney has finished there is but one country, lying right in the middle of the map, that does not have any stars and stripes in it.
And what is that country?
IRAN!
Stone does not mention PNAC or A Clean Break, but there are hints and references. One such hint that there was a conspiracy to lead W into war for other reasons is a scene at a meal in The White House, at which are present Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and a few others. The meal is taking place a significant time after the invasion of Iraq and W is demanding where the WMDs are, how could the intel be so wrong, who is responsible? A rep of the CIA is there and he accepts the blame and resigns. The camera then sweeps around the table to focus on the faces of those present and they all wear a guilty but relieved and gleeful face that they got away with it.
Stone obviously believes that W is innocent of all charges and that he was duped by "the boss" (in the film W calls Cheney "boss").
But surely the POTUS cannot be so manipulated? You'd better believe it, baby. You'd better believe it!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
OBAMA (OR WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS), WHAT ABOUT PALESTINE?
El Presidente has at last condemned Iran.
He has condemned violence against innocent people.
He said fuck all about the violence against innocent people in Palestine in the New Year in which approximately 1500 died, in the engineered Operation Cast Lead that Israel needlessly implemented after virtually no rockets were fired from Gaza last summer as part of a truce agreement brokered by Egypt.
This is sickening double standards and serves as damning evidence as to who Obama (or whatever his name is) really serves; ZOG!
Heil ZOG!
He has condemned violence against innocent people.
He said fuck all about the violence against innocent people in Palestine in the New Year in which approximately 1500 died, in the engineered Operation Cast Lead that Israel needlessly implemented after virtually no rockets were fired from Gaza last summer as part of a truce agreement brokered by Egypt.
This is sickening double standards and serves as damning evidence as to who Obama (or whatever his name is) really serves; ZOG!
Heil ZOG!
AARONOVITCH IS AT IT AGAIN : WHAT A WASTER
That David Aaronovitch is at it again, this time defending the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and suggesting that the Chilcot Inquiry into that invasion cannot be open and held quickly, and that anyway, what's the point because the conspiracy theorists will have reached their conclusions no matter what evidence is presented, be it open or closed.
Aaronovitch tries to rubbish the memo that Bush and Blair schemed to fly a white plane representing the UN over Iraq to provoke Saddam into shooting it down, thus giving the reason to invade Iraq by reminding us all that the memo was public knowledge years ago.
He then tries to paint the 'lies' over Iraq's WMD as 'truth' by quoting the conclusions of the Butler and Hutton Inquiries which were that Iraq had WMDs and a WMD program to blow us all to bits. Well, Dave, where the F are these weapons (and purleaze don't tell them he secreted them into Syria and Iran under the watchful eyes of the NSA).
But one major major major piece of evidence that Mr A does not address is PNAC and its personnel and their mates.
Cheney. Rumsfeld. Bush. You name them. They all went on TV and radio and wrote in the media and even wrote letters to President Clinton;
- they wanted Saddam out.
- they wanted Iraqi oil for themselves.
- they knew where Saddam's WMD were ( north, east , south and west of Baghdad according to the unknown lord of unknowns Rumsfeld).
- they knew Saddam was involved in global terrorism.
- they wanted to impose liberty and democracy in Iraq and Israel's other neighbours as stated in A Clean Break.
- they wrote Rebuilding America's Defenses and other reports to this effect
But in order to do all that and more they needed 'a new Pearl Harbor', which fortunately for them they got on 9/11.
On 9/11 this lot were in charge of the White House and The Pentagon!!!!!!!!!
In order to cover up 9/11 they installed Herr Kissinger to manage the 'inquiry', but after he was ousted by the Jersey Girls for conflicts of interest they got another panel, several of whom have stated publicly that they are convinced there is a major cover up regarding 9/11 due to dodgy testimony and refusal to hand over documentation.
Instead of investigating that, Mr A suggests that the Chilcot Inquiry should instead investigate the post-war planning, or lack thereof.
But don't hold your breath. Chilcot was part of the Butler Inquiry, served in the Northern Ireland Office, has several honours such as CGB and is described as "a mandarin with a safe pair of hands".
Independent my arse.
==========================================
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6557269.ece
From The Times
June 23, 2009
Even if it's all in public, they'll cry whitewash
Of course the entire Iraq inquiry should be open. But that will take time and is still unlikely to satisfy critics of the war
David Aaronovitch
It's a fun day for Sir John Chilcot, because he will get to meet both Nick Clegg and David Cameron to talk about his inquiry into the Iraq War. He will find them, I am sure, wanting nothing that is not best for the country, or that would be unconducive for the learning of important lessons.
And I hope, given that I've put his name in the first paragraph and that this is, after all, The Times, Sir John will also read this article, urging upon him that he hold the entire inquiry in public, despite my certainty that it will, in one important sense, do no good, because it will change no one's minds.
The bit that won't happen is the supposed “truth and reconciliation” element in which a cynical public is satisfied that - at last - there has been an accounting. This is impossible. Some of the most exalted and popular opponents of the war are implacable in their interior knowledge of the wrongness of the conflict and of the perfidy that led up to it. No facts or interpretations that they could possibly hear would ever change their minds. Instead, they await the unlikely moment when their beliefs are demonstrated, by some hidden memorandum or mandarin testimony, to be utterly and irrefutably correct. Then, perhaps, they will get the Trial of Tony Blair for War Crimes that they have been wanting for so long - the final scratch to their intolerable itch.
I was reminded about this implacability when the splendid broadcaster Jon Snow put in a cameo appearance at my session on conspiracy theories at the Hay Festival last month and delivered the opinion that there had been a real conspiracy to get us into the Iraq War, and that I had been one of the dupes of the conspirators.
Just last Sunday the amnesiac inventiveness of critics was demonstrated when one newspaper excitedly detailed a memo that it had seen of a 2003 meeting between George Bush and Mr Blair, adding that “Gordon Brown's critics fear a closed inquiry will also black out embarrassing truths. Today's revelations will only fuel the fire.” In fact the memo - which was very selectively quoted - had been “revealed” on Channel 4 News and in The New York Times three and a half years earlier.
For six years now - and, of course, it can be understood - the war's critics, unconfronted with the alternative reality that their preferences would have bestowed upon the world, have had it all to themselves. The war was “immoral”, “illegal” (so why no prosecutions in all that time?) and fought under a “false prospectus”. Claims of up to two million dead in Iraq have been bandied about and believed. Any of the inquiries into events leading up to the war have been dismissed as whitewashes, essentially for failing to give the answer that critics want; that answer being that there was a deliberate and wicked attempt to fool the peoples of America, Britain and the world into war.
The Hutton inquiry, of course, wasn't about that. But critics wanted it to be and when - as had seemed to me fairly inevitable - Lord Hutton (all of whose evidence was heard in public) criticised the BBC for running a wrong story and refusing to correct it, he was excoriated. Often by people who had never (and still have never) read his report.
Then came Lord Butler of Brockwell, who looked at intelligence failures in the run-up to the war. He did criticise the Government, and how its “informality” had “reduced the scope for informed collective decision making”. But this is what Lord Butler's committee said about the evidence: “We have reached the conclusion that prior to the war the Iraqi regime... had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons progammes, including, if possible, its nuclear weapons programme... In support of that goal [it] was carrying out illicit research and development and procurement, activities... [and it] was developing ballistic missiles.” Not whitewash maybe, but “mandarin understatement” said the more intelligent critics.
Lord Butler's was the consensus in 2001-03, or as Sir Menzies Campbell put it on publication of the September 2002 dossier: “We can also agree that Saddam most certainly has chemical and biological weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability.” Or Robin Cook, writing in February 2001: “We must not be deceived. Saddam still threatens his neighbours. Unchecked, Iraq could develop offensive chemical and biological capabilities, and develop a crude nuclear device in about five years.”
So the “lies” weren't lies at all, leaving just one extant charge of culpable dishonesty - that Mr Blair and Mr Bush secretly decided on war in 2002, come what may. I went into this at length with those I interviewed for a series on the Blair premiership in late 2007. Sir David Manning, his foreign affairs adviser and later Ambassador to the US told me that Mr Bush had agreed with Mr Blair that, were Saddam to comply fully with international obligations, there would be no need for invasion because they would have effectively “crated the guy”. There was no prior hidden compact.
The irony of the discussion on an open inquiry, is that I think Mr Blair would probably be the star turn, pointing out some of the above and that, as a consequence, critics would declare another whitewash. And, though this would be a waste of time, at least we'd be able to tell Jon Snow and others that it had been done.
But a serious inquiry could help with two things. The first seems to be specifically precluded by the time frame given to Sir John, and that would be to investigate whether Britain had, from 1980 on, effectively encouraged Saddam's belligerence towards his neighbours. This constitutes the unheld inquiry into the First Gulf War.
The second is the area where Sir John should concentrate, which is on how postwar planning in Iraq was done, how the wrong things were anticipated and the right things overlooked, how a fantasy of policing and governance was constructed, and why warnings from those on the ground were ignored. And whether such mistakes are inevitable or could be avoided. This is what we really need to know, and what might save lives in the future.
What Sir John should also tell Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg is this: you can have open or you can have quick, but you can't have both. If you are going to get dozens of folk going on the stand in full view, they will have to prepare, and natural justice demands they are allowed to do so. Quick and open may be gaudy politics but it is bad inquiring.
Aaronovitch tries to rubbish the memo that Bush and Blair schemed to fly a white plane representing the UN over Iraq to provoke Saddam into shooting it down, thus giving the reason to invade Iraq by reminding us all that the memo was public knowledge years ago.
He then tries to paint the 'lies' over Iraq's WMD as 'truth' by quoting the conclusions of the Butler and Hutton Inquiries which were that Iraq had WMDs and a WMD program to blow us all to bits. Well, Dave, where the F are these weapons (and purleaze don't tell them he secreted them into Syria and Iran under the watchful eyes of the NSA).
But one major major major piece of evidence that Mr A does not address is PNAC and its personnel and their mates.
Cheney. Rumsfeld. Bush. You name them. They all went on TV and radio and wrote in the media and even wrote letters to President Clinton;
- they wanted Saddam out.
- they wanted Iraqi oil for themselves.
- they knew where Saddam's WMD were ( north, east , south and west of Baghdad according to the unknown lord of unknowns Rumsfeld).
- they knew Saddam was involved in global terrorism.
- they wanted to impose liberty and democracy in Iraq and Israel's other neighbours as stated in A Clean Break.
- they wrote Rebuilding America's Defenses and other reports to this effect
But in order to do all that and more they needed 'a new Pearl Harbor', which fortunately for them they got on 9/11.
On 9/11 this lot were in charge of the White House and The Pentagon!!!!!!!!!
In order to cover up 9/11 they installed Herr Kissinger to manage the 'inquiry', but after he was ousted by the Jersey Girls for conflicts of interest they got another panel, several of whom have stated publicly that they are convinced there is a major cover up regarding 9/11 due to dodgy testimony and refusal to hand over documentation.
Instead of investigating that, Mr A suggests that the Chilcot Inquiry should instead investigate the post-war planning, or lack thereof.
But don't hold your breath. Chilcot was part of the Butler Inquiry, served in the Northern Ireland Office, has several honours such as CGB and is described as "a mandarin with a safe pair of hands".
Independent my arse.
==========================================
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6557269.ece
From The Times
June 23, 2009
Even if it's all in public, they'll cry whitewash
Of course the entire Iraq inquiry should be open. But that will take time and is still unlikely to satisfy critics of the war
David Aaronovitch
It's a fun day for Sir John Chilcot, because he will get to meet both Nick Clegg and David Cameron to talk about his inquiry into the Iraq War. He will find them, I am sure, wanting nothing that is not best for the country, or that would be unconducive for the learning of important lessons.
And I hope, given that I've put his name in the first paragraph and that this is, after all, The Times, Sir John will also read this article, urging upon him that he hold the entire inquiry in public, despite my certainty that it will, in one important sense, do no good, because it will change no one's minds.
The bit that won't happen is the supposed “truth and reconciliation” element in which a cynical public is satisfied that - at last - there has been an accounting. This is impossible. Some of the most exalted and popular opponents of the war are implacable in their interior knowledge of the wrongness of the conflict and of the perfidy that led up to it. No facts or interpretations that they could possibly hear would ever change their minds. Instead, they await the unlikely moment when their beliefs are demonstrated, by some hidden memorandum or mandarin testimony, to be utterly and irrefutably correct. Then, perhaps, they will get the Trial of Tony Blair for War Crimes that they have been wanting for so long - the final scratch to their intolerable itch.
I was reminded about this implacability when the splendid broadcaster Jon Snow put in a cameo appearance at my session on conspiracy theories at the Hay Festival last month and delivered the opinion that there had been a real conspiracy to get us into the Iraq War, and that I had been one of the dupes of the conspirators.
Just last Sunday the amnesiac inventiveness of critics was demonstrated when one newspaper excitedly detailed a memo that it had seen of a 2003 meeting between George Bush and Mr Blair, adding that “Gordon Brown's critics fear a closed inquiry will also black out embarrassing truths. Today's revelations will only fuel the fire.” In fact the memo - which was very selectively quoted - had been “revealed” on Channel 4 News and in The New York Times three and a half years earlier.
For six years now - and, of course, it can be understood - the war's critics, unconfronted with the alternative reality that their preferences would have bestowed upon the world, have had it all to themselves. The war was “immoral”, “illegal” (so why no prosecutions in all that time?) and fought under a “false prospectus”. Claims of up to two million dead in Iraq have been bandied about and believed. Any of the inquiries into events leading up to the war have been dismissed as whitewashes, essentially for failing to give the answer that critics want; that answer being that there was a deliberate and wicked attempt to fool the peoples of America, Britain and the world into war.
The Hutton inquiry, of course, wasn't about that. But critics wanted it to be and when - as had seemed to me fairly inevitable - Lord Hutton (all of whose evidence was heard in public) criticised the BBC for running a wrong story and refusing to correct it, he was excoriated. Often by people who had never (and still have never) read his report.
Then came Lord Butler of Brockwell, who looked at intelligence failures in the run-up to the war. He did criticise the Government, and how its “informality” had “reduced the scope for informed collective decision making”. But this is what Lord Butler's committee said about the evidence: “We have reached the conclusion that prior to the war the Iraqi regime... had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons progammes, including, if possible, its nuclear weapons programme... In support of that goal [it] was carrying out illicit research and development and procurement, activities... [and it] was developing ballistic missiles.” Not whitewash maybe, but “mandarin understatement” said the more intelligent critics.
Lord Butler's was the consensus in 2001-03, or as Sir Menzies Campbell put it on publication of the September 2002 dossier: “We can also agree that Saddam most certainly has chemical and biological weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability.” Or Robin Cook, writing in February 2001: “We must not be deceived. Saddam still threatens his neighbours. Unchecked, Iraq could develop offensive chemical and biological capabilities, and develop a crude nuclear device in about five years.”
So the “lies” weren't lies at all, leaving just one extant charge of culpable dishonesty - that Mr Blair and Mr Bush secretly decided on war in 2002, come what may. I went into this at length with those I interviewed for a series on the Blair premiership in late 2007. Sir David Manning, his foreign affairs adviser and later Ambassador to the US told me that Mr Bush had agreed with Mr Blair that, were Saddam to comply fully with international obligations, there would be no need for invasion because they would have effectively “crated the guy”. There was no prior hidden compact.
The irony of the discussion on an open inquiry, is that I think Mr Blair would probably be the star turn, pointing out some of the above and that, as a consequence, critics would declare another whitewash. And, though this would be a waste of time, at least we'd be able to tell Jon Snow and others that it had been done.
But a serious inquiry could help with two things. The first seems to be specifically precluded by the time frame given to Sir John, and that would be to investigate whether Britain had, from 1980 on, effectively encouraged Saddam's belligerence towards his neighbours. This constitutes the unheld inquiry into the First Gulf War.
The second is the area where Sir John should concentrate, which is on how postwar planning in Iraq was done, how the wrong things were anticipated and the right things overlooked, how a fantasy of policing and governance was constructed, and why warnings from those on the ground were ignored. And whether such mistakes are inevitable or could be avoided. This is what we really need to know, and what might save lives in the future.
What Sir John should also tell Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg is this: you can have open or you can have quick, but you can't have both. If you are going to get dozens of folk going on the stand in full view, they will have to prepare, and natural justice demands they are allowed to do so. Quick and open may be gaudy politics but it is bad inquiring.
NEDA AND JEAN CHARLS DE MENEZES AND DR DAVID KELLY: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
When Jean Charles de Menezes was assassinated his face was visible in the British media, but for a different reason. Upon his needless death we were immediately told,
- He was linked to a terrorist plot to bomb London.
- He wore a thick coat on a hot day.
- He didn't stop when challenged.
- He jumped the ticket barriers.
...and a few other 'facts'.
We now know that none of these 'facts' were true.
We were lied to...knowingly!
When Dr David Kelly was found dead we were told,
- he had committed suicide, even though his religion forbids it
- he was under pressure, but had told friends he was looking forward to getting back to work
- he had slit his wrists and taken some tablets, though allegedly he had cut a minor artery, resulting in a very small pool of blood near his body, and the tablets he had taken were weak and of insufficient quantity to kill him.
...but we were not told that about six hours before Kelly was reported missing the local police began Operation Mason, the official name given to the search to find Kelly.
Neda was needlessly killed during a protest in Tehran on Saturday. Her face is all over the British media, the same British media that stated Jean Charles was a terrorist and David Kelly had killed himself.
We are being told by the same British media that,
- the Iranian government is corrupt
- it kills its own people to protect itself
- the protests in Iran have nothing whatsoever to do with the ZOGs, despite a decade long war of propaganda and threats of attack from those same ZOGs
The only difference I can see is that the UK government is covering up the deaths of JCdM and Kelly.
- He was linked to a terrorist plot to bomb London.
- He wore a thick coat on a hot day.
- He didn't stop when challenged.
- He jumped the ticket barriers.
...and a few other 'facts'.
We now know that none of these 'facts' were true.
We were lied to...knowingly!
When Dr David Kelly was found dead we were told,
- he had committed suicide, even though his religion forbids it
- he was under pressure, but had told friends he was looking forward to getting back to work
- he had slit his wrists and taken some tablets, though allegedly he had cut a minor artery, resulting in a very small pool of blood near his body, and the tablets he had taken were weak and of insufficient quantity to kill him.
...but we were not told that about six hours before Kelly was reported missing the local police began Operation Mason, the official name given to the search to find Kelly.
Neda was needlessly killed during a protest in Tehran on Saturday. Her face is all over the British media, the same British media that stated Jean Charles was a terrorist and David Kelly had killed himself.
We are being told by the same British media that,
- the Iranian government is corrupt
- it kills its own people to protect itself
- the protests in Iran have nothing whatsoever to do with the ZOGs, despite a decade long war of propaganda and threats of attack from those same ZOGs
The only difference I can see is that the UK government is covering up the deaths of JCdM and Kelly.
IS BILDERBERGER RACHMAN ADMTTING TO SOME MEDDLING IN IRAN?
Everyone's favourite Bilderberg one-worlder Gideon Rachman has written a checklist, or rather two, for revolution in Iran. The first list contains
● “Critical mass”: small demonstrations of 5,000 people can be ignored or suppressed. But half a million people in the streets is another matter.
● Weak or divided security services.
● Some independent media.
● Money.
● Serious corruption, which Mr Miller argues is “generally the main mass motivator”.
● Opposition leaders who have served a stint in government.
● A history of rebellion from which lessons can be learnt.
● Strong support in the capital city.
● A rigged election that provides a spark for the revolt.
But Rachman adds a second list containing
● A divided ruling elite.
● A sense of revolutionary momentum from events overseas; Europe in 1989 and 1848 show that revolution can be catching.
● External help.
● The use of violence by the authorities, which can either make or break a revolution.
And it is this 'External help' item that is intriguing because Rachman goes onto say,
"Every element on these two lists is now present to some degree in Iran – with the possible exceptions of division within the security forces and significant external assistance."
Note the difference : external help v significant external assistance.
Is Rachman aware of some 'external help' that he considers insignificant but is in reality significant?
This is Gideon Rachman, 1st Class Degree in History from Cambridge University, and Bilderberger for the FT don't you know? He wouldn't get his words mixed up, would he?
significant v insignificant ; what's the difference, eh?
He surely cannot have failed to see one of his masters Herr Kissinger demand an attack on Iran on TV?
No, there is more to Rachman's words...
Ah, I know what it is! He's 'forgotten' to mention Mossadegh, voted Iranian of the 20th Century by Iranians, and overthrown by MI6 and the CIA for having the flaming cheek of wanting to use Iranian oil for Iranians.
Tut, tut.
==========================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f99199d2-5f5f-11de-93d1-00144feabdc0.html
Check-list for an Iranian revolution
By Gideon Rachman
Published: June 22 2009 20:26 | Last updated: June 22 2009 20:26
What does it take to make a successful revolution? That question is clearly weighing on the mind of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In his long rant at last Friday’s prayers at Tehran University, Iran’s supreme leader accused foreign governments of trying to foment a revolt in his country. He claims that foreigners are using the uprisings in the former Soviet Union as a model. “They are comparing the Islamic Republic with Georgia,” he complained.
Mr Khamenei is right about one thing. The comparison between events in Iran and the “colour revolutions” in the former USSR is certainly suggestive. Andrew Miller, a journalist at The Economist who witnessed the colour revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan has come up with a useful “checklist” of some of the factors that can help a revolution to succeed .
● “Critical mass”: small demonstrations of 5,000 people can be ignored or suppressed. But half a million people in the streets is another matter.
● Weak or divided security services.
● Some independent media.
● Money.
● Serious corruption, which Mr Miller argues is “generally the main mass motivator”.
● Opposition leaders who have served a stint in government.
● A history of rebellion from which lessons can be learnt.
● Strong support in the capital city.
● A rigged election that provides a spark for the revolt.
I would add more elements to Mr Miller’s list:
● A divided ruling elite.
● A sense of revolutionary momentum from events overseas; Europe in 1989 and 1848 show that revolution can be catching.
● External help.
● The use of violence by the authorities, which can either make or break a revolution.
Every element on these two lists is now present to some degree in Iran – with the possible exceptions of division within the security forces and significant external assistance.
The demonstrations in Tehran have been huge. Even after Mr Khamenei’s warnings of impending bloodshed, very big crowds turned out on Saturday – some were killed and almost 500 were arrested. The task for the opposition now is to find a way of motivating people to keep demonstrating, despite the dangers. Many Iranians will recall that it took more than a year of sustained unrest to topple the Shah in 1979.
For the moment, the Iranian security services seem grimly united and willing to shed blood. The Basij militias and Revolutionary Guard show little sign of wavering. The real signs of division are within Iran’s ruling elite. Mr Khamenei did his utmost to paper over these at Friday prayers. He praised both President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad and Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s bitter enemy, former president Ali Akbar Rafsanjani. But since then Mr Rafsanjani’s daughter has briefly been arrested. A power struggle is clearly under way.
As for money and the media: the media is controlled, but independent reports on the internet and foreign journalists are helping to fill some of the gap. The Tehran middle class is not on the breadline. And the street demonstrations that are keeping the opposition going do not, anyway, require huge resources.
Corruption is clearly an acutely sensitive issue. Mr Khamenei addressed it directly on Friday. “Everybody must fight corruption,” he urged. “If it is not brought under control it will spread, like it has in some western countries.”
The Ukrainian and Georgian revolutions were led by former ministers who had turned against the government. If this does matter, then as a former prime minister Mir-Hossein Moussavi, the leader of the Iranian opposition, certainly ticks the box. Some cast doubt on his credibility as an opponent of the regime, given that he was one of only four candidates regarded as sufficiently ideologically-sound to run in the first place. But Mr Moussavi has now come to symbolise far more than his own rather cautious views.
As for a history of revolt: these are by far the biggest demonstrations since the foundation of the Islamic Republic in 1979. But there has been repression before, of student and reformist movements. When it comes to “support in the capital city” and allegations of a rigged election – both elements have clearly been critical to sustaining the revolt.
It suits the Iranian government to blame the revolt on foreigners. (Flatteringly, Mr Khamenei insisted on Friday that “the most evil of them all is the British government”.) But whether the regime likes it or not, the demonstrators on the streets of Tehran are angry Iranians, who need little encouragement from outsiders. However, events in the outside world might have influenced the politics of Iran in more subtle ways – the election of Barack Obama and political change in Iraq and Lebanon may have helped to fan a wind of change in Iran as well.
The great unknown is the effect of violent suppression of the demonstrations. Once a regime starts killing its own people it crosses a line. Sometimes, as in Iran in 1979, bloodshed on the streets leads to such a loss of confidence and popularity that it spells the end for a government. On other occasions, if a government is brutal and ruthless enough, violent repression can work – China in 1989 is the obvious recent example.
Killing demonstrators, however, has stripped the Iranian government of its claims to legitimacy. It may secure the regime’s survival in the short term. In the long term, it surely dooms it.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
More columns at www.ft.com/rachman
Read and post comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog
● “Critical mass”: small demonstrations of 5,000 people can be ignored or suppressed. But half a million people in the streets is another matter.
● Weak or divided security services.
● Some independent media.
● Money.
● Serious corruption, which Mr Miller argues is “generally the main mass motivator”.
● Opposition leaders who have served a stint in government.
● A history of rebellion from which lessons can be learnt.
● Strong support in the capital city.
● A rigged election that provides a spark for the revolt.
But Rachman adds a second list containing
● A divided ruling elite.
● A sense of revolutionary momentum from events overseas; Europe in 1989 and 1848 show that revolution can be catching.
● External help.
● The use of violence by the authorities, which can either make or break a revolution.
And it is this 'External help' item that is intriguing because Rachman goes onto say,
"Every element on these two lists is now present to some degree in Iran – with the possible exceptions of division within the security forces and significant external assistance."
Note the difference : external help v significant external assistance.
Is Rachman aware of some 'external help' that he considers insignificant but is in reality significant?
This is Gideon Rachman, 1st Class Degree in History from Cambridge University, and Bilderberger for the FT don't you know? He wouldn't get his words mixed up, would he?
significant v insignificant ; what's the difference, eh?
He surely cannot have failed to see one of his masters Herr Kissinger demand an attack on Iran on TV?
No, there is more to Rachman's words...
Ah, I know what it is! He's 'forgotten' to mention Mossadegh, voted Iranian of the 20th Century by Iranians, and overthrown by MI6 and the CIA for having the flaming cheek of wanting to use Iranian oil for Iranians.
Tut, tut.
==========================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f99199d2-5f5f-11de-93d1-00144feabdc0.html
Check-list for an Iranian revolution
By Gideon Rachman
Published: June 22 2009 20:26 | Last updated: June 22 2009 20:26
What does it take to make a successful revolution? That question is clearly weighing on the mind of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In his long rant at last Friday’s prayers at Tehran University, Iran’s supreme leader accused foreign governments of trying to foment a revolt in his country. He claims that foreigners are using the uprisings in the former Soviet Union as a model. “They are comparing the Islamic Republic with Georgia,” he complained.
Mr Khamenei is right about one thing. The comparison between events in Iran and the “colour revolutions” in the former USSR is certainly suggestive. Andrew Miller, a journalist at The Economist who witnessed the colour revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan has come up with a useful “checklist” of some of the factors that can help a revolution to succeed .
● “Critical mass”: small demonstrations of 5,000 people can be ignored or suppressed. But half a million people in the streets is another matter.
● Weak or divided security services.
● Some independent media.
● Money.
● Serious corruption, which Mr Miller argues is “generally the main mass motivator”.
● Opposition leaders who have served a stint in government.
● A history of rebellion from which lessons can be learnt.
● Strong support in the capital city.
● A rigged election that provides a spark for the revolt.
I would add more elements to Mr Miller’s list:
● A divided ruling elite.
● A sense of revolutionary momentum from events overseas; Europe in 1989 and 1848 show that revolution can be catching.
● External help.
● The use of violence by the authorities, which can either make or break a revolution.
Every element on these two lists is now present to some degree in Iran – with the possible exceptions of division within the security forces and significant external assistance.
The demonstrations in Tehran have been huge. Even after Mr Khamenei’s warnings of impending bloodshed, very big crowds turned out on Saturday – some were killed and almost 500 were arrested. The task for the opposition now is to find a way of motivating people to keep demonstrating, despite the dangers. Many Iranians will recall that it took more than a year of sustained unrest to topple the Shah in 1979.
For the moment, the Iranian security services seem grimly united and willing to shed blood. The Basij militias and Revolutionary Guard show little sign of wavering. The real signs of division are within Iran’s ruling elite. Mr Khamenei did his utmost to paper over these at Friday prayers. He praised both President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad and Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s bitter enemy, former president Ali Akbar Rafsanjani. But since then Mr Rafsanjani’s daughter has briefly been arrested. A power struggle is clearly under way.
As for money and the media: the media is controlled, but independent reports on the internet and foreign journalists are helping to fill some of the gap. The Tehran middle class is not on the breadline. And the street demonstrations that are keeping the opposition going do not, anyway, require huge resources.
Corruption is clearly an acutely sensitive issue. Mr Khamenei addressed it directly on Friday. “Everybody must fight corruption,” he urged. “If it is not brought under control it will spread, like it has in some western countries.”
The Ukrainian and Georgian revolutions were led by former ministers who had turned against the government. If this does matter, then as a former prime minister Mir-Hossein Moussavi, the leader of the Iranian opposition, certainly ticks the box. Some cast doubt on his credibility as an opponent of the regime, given that he was one of only four candidates regarded as sufficiently ideologically-sound to run in the first place. But Mr Moussavi has now come to symbolise far more than his own rather cautious views.
As for a history of revolt: these are by far the biggest demonstrations since the foundation of the Islamic Republic in 1979. But there has been repression before, of student and reformist movements. When it comes to “support in the capital city” and allegations of a rigged election – both elements have clearly been critical to sustaining the revolt.
It suits the Iranian government to blame the revolt on foreigners. (Flatteringly, Mr Khamenei insisted on Friday that “the most evil of them all is the British government”.) But whether the regime likes it or not, the demonstrators on the streets of Tehran are angry Iranians, who need little encouragement from outsiders. However, events in the outside world might have influenced the politics of Iran in more subtle ways – the election of Barack Obama and political change in Iraq and Lebanon may have helped to fan a wind of change in Iran as well.
The great unknown is the effect of violent suppression of the demonstrations. Once a regime starts killing its own people it crosses a line. Sometimes, as in Iran in 1979, bloodshed on the streets leads to such a loss of confidence and popularity that it spells the end for a government. On other occasions, if a government is brutal and ruthless enough, violent repression can work – China in 1989 is the obvious recent example.
Killing demonstrators, however, has stripped the Iranian government of its claims to legitimacy. It may secure the regime’s survival in the short term. In the long term, it surely dooms it.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
More columns at www.ft.com/rachman
Read and post comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog
Monday, June 22, 2009
HEY! HEY! ILLUMINATÉ! HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?
Whether it was by
1. human sacrifice
2. starvation
3. dehydration
4. lack of medical resources
5. engineered war, or the remnants thereof
how many kids did you kill today?
Heil Brown! (for bailing out the greedy reckless gambling bankers with trillions of our money, some of which could and should have been used to save lives, not just here but across the globe)
1. human sacrifice
2. starvation
3. dehydration
4. lack of medical resources
5. engineered war, or the remnants thereof
how many kids did you kill today?
Heil Brown! (for bailing out the greedy reckless gambling bankers with trillions of our money, some of which could and should have been used to save lives, not just here but across the globe)
REGIONAL ARCHITECTURE
That's such a nice phrase : regional architecture.
Rrrregional Arrrchitecture.
But what does it mean?
According to Kevin Rudd, the PM of Oz, it is the interlocking govermental structure of nations (that word again), ie continental government, but because Australia is basically its own continent Rudd means Asia-Pacific, and because the Pacific Ocean is the largest in the world then any Asia-Pacific Union, i.e. government, would be prrrretty big.
But this is one more indication that we are being led sheep-like into regional governments which will quickly and easily be amalgamated into one big tyrannical world government when the opportunity arises.
Heil Brown! (for betraying us into the European regional architecture with a knowing smile)
=======================
From http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-06/05/content_6737054.htm
Australian PM wants Asia-Pacific union
(Agencies)
Updated: 2008-06-05 07:58
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Wednesday that he wants to see an Asia-Pacific Community by 2020 structured similar to the European Union.
Rudd said there was a "brittleness" in bilateral ties, and that while regional bodies like ASEAN and APEC had achieved much, there was a need for a region-wide architecture to tackle the growing challenges of the Asia-Pacific century.
Rrrregional Arrrchitecture.
But what does it mean?
According to Kevin Rudd, the PM of Oz, it is the interlocking govermental structure of nations (that word again), ie continental government, but because Australia is basically its own continent Rudd means Asia-Pacific, and because the Pacific Ocean is the largest in the world then any Asia-Pacific Union, i.e. government, would be prrrretty big.
But this is one more indication that we are being led sheep-like into regional governments which will quickly and easily be amalgamated into one big tyrannical world government when the opportunity arises.
Heil Brown! (for betraying us into the European regional architecture with a knowing smile)
=======================
From http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-06/05/content_6737054.htm
Australian PM wants Asia-Pacific union
(Agencies)
Updated: 2008-06-05 07:58
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Wednesday that he wants to see an Asia-Pacific Community by 2020 structured similar to the European Union.
Rudd said there was a "brittleness" in bilateral ties, and that while regional bodies like ASEAN and APEC had achieved much, there was a need for a region-wide architecture to tackle the growing challenges of the Asia-Pacific century.
IRAN : OF COURSE IT'S THE UK AND USA AND ISRAEL
13 years ago the people who came to be called the Neocons wrote A Clean Break which called for Israeli aggression and expansion. Nations (that word again) named as targets for such Israeli charity were
Iraq - now a shithole after Saddam was accused of involvement in 9/11, and having WMD and bad breath, and Iraqi oil is now in the pockets of the West
Syria and Lebanon - these two nations are linked too strongly to be considered separately; assassinations of Lebanese politicians blamed on Syria, a war on Lebanon in 2006
Iran - first accused of having nuclear weapons and the USA urged to attack Iran by certain Israel-friendly US politicians, and now accused of vote-rigging and a suspected Israeli agent egging on the protesters
The people who wrote A Clean Break occupied key positions in the Bush administration on 9/11 and since, and wrote other pro-war pro-Israel documents such as Rebuilding America's Defenses. The American Public grew sick of it. Obama offered change, and all he gave the USA was a change of faces; Rahm and Ezekiel Emanual are Zionazis to the core, as is Dennis Ross. AIPAC and Bilderberg dominate Obama's administration.
To think that the USA or the UK would cease their meddling in the Middle East is silly. Take our Foreign Secretary. He ballsed up the return of the two British hostages who were returned dead. He loves torture and refused to testify to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights about UK complicity in torture. He also risked a nuclear war with Russia last year when he blamed Russia for invading Georgia last August, though we now know tie-muncher started it. In short, the man is an idiot.
So when I hear Miliband say that the UK is not meddling in Iran we can be 100% guaranteed, as sure as eggs is eggs, that the UK is meddling in Iran.
And if the UK is then we can be 100% guaranteed, as sure as eggs is eggs, that the USA is meddling in Iran.
Why?
Because we have ZOGs; Zionist Occupied Governments.
And we have ZOGs because the Zionist hierarchy consisting primarily of the Rothschilds have allied with our Royal Family via the Illuminati to cause chaos and destruction across the globe, including WW1 and WW2, to benefit themselves not the people who they claim to represent and protect.
Heil Brown!
Iraq - now a shithole after Saddam was accused of involvement in 9/11, and having WMD and bad breath, and Iraqi oil is now in the pockets of the West
Syria and Lebanon - these two nations are linked too strongly to be considered separately; assassinations of Lebanese politicians blamed on Syria, a war on Lebanon in 2006
Iran - first accused of having nuclear weapons and the USA urged to attack Iran by certain Israel-friendly US politicians, and now accused of vote-rigging and a suspected Israeli agent egging on the protesters
The people who wrote A Clean Break occupied key positions in the Bush administration on 9/11 and since, and wrote other pro-war pro-Israel documents such as Rebuilding America's Defenses. The American Public grew sick of it. Obama offered change, and all he gave the USA was a change of faces; Rahm and Ezekiel Emanual are Zionazis to the core, as is Dennis Ross. AIPAC and Bilderberg dominate Obama's administration.
To think that the USA or the UK would cease their meddling in the Middle East is silly. Take our Foreign Secretary. He ballsed up the return of the two British hostages who were returned dead. He loves torture and refused to testify to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights about UK complicity in torture. He also risked a nuclear war with Russia last year when he blamed Russia for invading Georgia last August, though we now know tie-muncher started it. In short, the man is an idiot.
So when I hear Miliband say that the UK is not meddling in Iran we can be 100% guaranteed, as sure as eggs is eggs, that the UK is meddling in Iran.
And if the UK is then we can be 100% guaranteed, as sure as eggs is eggs, that the USA is meddling in Iran.
Why?
Because we have ZOGs; Zionist Occupied Governments.
And we have ZOGs because the Zionist hierarchy consisting primarily of the Rothschilds have allied with our Royal Family via the Illuminati to cause chaos and destruction across the globe, including WW1 and WW2, to benefit themselves not the people who they claim to represent and protect.
Heil Brown!
KILLING AMERICA AND GREAT BRITAIN
Put these three articles together and what do we get?
The Nazi Euthanasia Program: Forerunner of Obama's Death Council
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2009/3624obama_council_euthanasia.html
[I would read all of the articles relating to healthcare on EIR and LPAC to see understand how and why Nazi 'healthcare' is being implemented]
Suicide clinic challenged over patients who could have lived 'for decades'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jun/21/dignitas-suicide-clinic-britons
'Dr Death' arrives in UK
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dr-death-arrives-in-uk-1678116.html
I'll tell you what we get : DEATH
Dr Death arrived in Great Britain about the same time that The Home Office published a list of banned people, one of whom was Michael Savage, who like others on that list does not promote death.
So why are we allowing doctors into Great Britain to promote death while banning others from entering who don't promote death?
I'll tell you why : DEATH
Death in the name of saving money because the greedy reckless banks gambled it all away on derivatives and all sorts of clever sounding financial products that was encouraged and protected by Bilderbergers, like our very own glorious and 0.01% trustworthy Prime Minister and his sidekick Education Minister.
Not only should the bankers and their assistant Bilderbergers be locked away with Josef Fritzl for life for violating the Fraud Act 2006 Section 4, but also for murder.
Heil Brown!
The Nazi Euthanasia Program: Forerunner of Obama's Death Council
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2009/3624obama_council_euthanasia.html
[I would read all of the articles relating to healthcare on EIR and LPAC to see understand how and why Nazi 'healthcare' is being implemented]
Suicide clinic challenged over patients who could have lived 'for decades'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jun/21/dignitas-suicide-clinic-britons
'Dr Death' arrives in UK
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dr-death-arrives-in-uk-1678116.html
I'll tell you what we get : DEATH
Dr Death arrived in Great Britain about the same time that The Home Office published a list of banned people, one of whom was Michael Savage, who like others on that list does not promote death.
So why are we allowing doctors into Great Britain to promote death while banning others from entering who don't promote death?
I'll tell you why : DEATH
Death in the name of saving money because the greedy reckless banks gambled it all away on derivatives and all sorts of clever sounding financial products that was encouraged and protected by Bilderbergers, like our very own glorious and 0.01% trustworthy Prime Minister and his sidekick Education Minister.
Not only should the bankers and their assistant Bilderbergers be locked away with Josef Fritzl for life for violating the Fraud Act 2006 Section 4, but also for murder.
Heil Brown!
Friday, June 19, 2009
HEIL BROWN!
Oops. In my last post I forgot to aknowledge our glorious and 1% trustworthy Prime Minister for reneging on a very public promise to give us a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon and signing it with a knowing smile.
So here goes...
Heil Brown!
So here goes...
Heil Brown!
EVIL
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared Great Britain as evil.
By this he does not mean the British people as a whole, just the ruling class and their minions.
Proof?
In the street plan below, if anyone can explain how that inverted, irregular and incomplete pentagram got in there I'd be very interested.
By this he does not mean the British people as a whole, just the ruling class and their minions.
Proof?
In the street plan below, if anyone can explain how that inverted, irregular and incomplete pentagram got in there I'd be very interested.
We've been meddling and interfering in that region for centuries. BP was originally called Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
FEDERAL RESERVE TO GET MORE POWER?
Please say it isn't true.
The Federal Reserve cannot be getting more power?
I don't believe it.
How stupid can you get?
For those who still don't understand how The Federal Reserve system works, and that includes occupants of The white House, The Federal Reserve is not part of the executive, but is in fact a privately owned cartel of banks with shareholders.
Now, can you guess who the major shareholders in the Federal Reserve are?
Can you guess who the largest donators to the Obama campaign were?
Yup. The same banks who have inflated the derivatives bubble and caused the global economic woes we are experiencing, with people losing their homes and jobs and ultimately their lives.
The words 'fox' and 'chicken coop' are entering my mind at a nauseating rate.
And look who's behind this coup; SuperBilderbergers Summers and Geithner!
Heil (Bilderberg) Brown!
=============================
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703902.html?hpid=topnews
Core Reforms Held Firm As Much Else Fell Away
In Triage Mode, Economic Team's Goal To Expand Fed's Power Trumped Others
By David Cho and Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The plan President Obama unveiled yesterday to overhaul the government's oversight of the financial system was not the wholesale remaking of Washington that the administration had initially envisioned.
...Now as the plan moves to Capitol Hill, skeptics say it gives the Fed too much power. Others say it did not go far enough to eliminate overlapping agencies. Some big financial firms complain that they were cut out of the process.
Geithner and National Economic Council director Lawrence H. Summers, who forged the plan, did not seek a consensus among all of these interest groups.
The Federal Reserve cannot be getting more power?
I don't believe it.
How stupid can you get?
For those who still don't understand how The Federal Reserve system works, and that includes occupants of The white House, The Federal Reserve is not part of the executive, but is in fact a privately owned cartel of banks with shareholders.
Now, can you guess who the major shareholders in the Federal Reserve are?
Can you guess who the largest donators to the Obama campaign were?
Yup. The same banks who have inflated the derivatives bubble and caused the global economic woes we are experiencing, with people losing their homes and jobs and ultimately their lives.
The words 'fox' and 'chicken coop' are entering my mind at a nauseating rate.
And look who's behind this coup; SuperBilderbergers Summers and Geithner!
Heil (Bilderberg) Brown!
=============================
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703902.html?hpid=topnews
Core Reforms Held Firm As Much Else Fell Away
In Triage Mode, Economic Team's Goal To Expand Fed's Power Trumped Others
By David Cho and Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The plan President Obama unveiled yesterday to overhaul the government's oversight of the financial system was not the wholesale remaking of Washington that the administration had initially envisioned.
...Now as the plan moves to Capitol Hill, skeptics say it gives the Fed too much power. Others say it did not go far enough to eliminate overlapping agencies. Some big financial firms complain that they were cut out of the process.
Geithner and National Economic Council director Lawrence H. Summers, who forged the plan, did not seek a consensus among all of these interest groups.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
WHAT DOES TONY BLAIR REALLY WANT?
There are various theories regarding the revolt to get Brown ousted, one of which was that Blair was behind the Labour revolt. This has some merit because there was a strong whiff of Blairite shite emanating from those MPs involved.
Yet this morning, in an article in The Times, we read that he wants to be President of the EU. Cameron would give Blair a clear run reported The Times headline, yet again deep in he article is buried a comment from Cameron's PA that Cameron does not want a EU President. So how can the two statements be reconciled? Only by spin.
Blair wants his JP Morgan Chase cake with Prime Minister sauce and a sprinkle of EU Presidential cinammon...and the cheeky bugger wants to eat it!
In other words, he wants it all, and let's face it he needs it to repay all those mortgages.
I can believe that Blair may have been behind the move to oust Brown, but to protect Brown by running a very incompetent and amateurish campaign so that his prince Mandelson could gain control, i.e. Bilderberg still controls the UK without a general election.
But I believe that Blair is the chosen one for EU President, and that that is his desire, but it's going to take a lot of arm twisting to achieve it.
Remember that Brown signed us into the Nazi EU by reneging on a very public promise. Without Brown's signature there would be no role of EU President for Blair to occupy!
Heil Brown!
Yet this morning, in an article in The Times, we read that he wants to be President of the EU. Cameron would give Blair a clear run reported The Times headline, yet again deep in he article is buried a comment from Cameron's PA that Cameron does not want a EU President. So how can the two statements be reconciled? Only by spin.
Blair wants his JP Morgan Chase cake with Prime Minister sauce and a sprinkle of EU Presidential cinammon...and the cheeky bugger wants to eat it!
In other words, he wants it all, and let's face it he needs it to repay all those mortgages.
I can believe that Blair may have been behind the move to oust Brown, but to protect Brown by running a very incompetent and amateurish campaign so that his prince Mandelson could gain control, i.e. Bilderberg still controls the UK without a general election.
But I believe that Blair is the chosen one for EU President, and that that is his desire, but it's going to take a lot of arm twisting to achieve it.
Remember that Brown signed us into the Nazi EU by reneging on a very public promise. Without Brown's signature there would be no role of EU President for Blair to occupy!
Heil Brown!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
THE INTERNATIONAL SLAVERY MUSEUM
I've been to Liverpool today, to the International Slavery Museum on Albert Dock.
All I can say is, PUKE!
I've never quite understood Liverpool's role in the sickening transatlantic slave trade, but the museum gives a reasonable account.
But what I found most sickening is the role of our Royal family in the sickening transatlantic slave trade. Throughout the whole museum (which occupies just one floor) I found just one mention of our Royal family's role in the sickening transatlantic slave trade. Just one mention. Without their blessing, due to the massive profits, England would not have become the greatest slave trader on the planet.
But what also amazed me was the total lack of criticism of the Catholic Church! Why? Because the original transatlantic slave traders were the Portuguese and Spanish! I could not find one Papal Bull in the museum forbidding the transatlantic slave trade.
But so what you ask? It was centuries ago. Forget it. Move on.
Look at Africa today. Arguably the most mineral-rich continent on the planet, but it is basically a shithole. Yet we, the British, along with the cousins of our monarchy such as in Germany, France, Belgium and Italy, steamed in there, redrew borders to create nations with many fault lines based on tribal differences, making each nation ripe for manipulation while we stole the minerals from under their feet.
The point of the museum and the recent decision that the sickening transatlantic slave trade should be taught at school are designed to make you sick of our country, sick to the core, and thus make you more amenable to the Nazi EU.
I hate our role in the sickening transatlantic slave trade. Hate it. Yes, it should be taugt in schools in this and all nations. But let's have the full truth; that it had the full blessing of most major Royal families, including ours, and that of the Catholic Church.
But does that also mean we should cede sovereignty to a Nazi EU? Absolutely not.
Let's recognise the sickening transatlantic slave trade for what it was, a horrific blood stain on humanity caused and permitted by the greed of our elite, without letting it affect our decisions to cede sovereignty to an unelected elite who are agents of the descendents of those who ran the sickening transatlantic slave trade.
Heil Brown!
All I can say is, PUKE!
I've never quite understood Liverpool's role in the sickening transatlantic slave trade, but the museum gives a reasonable account.
But what I found most sickening is the role of our Royal family in the sickening transatlantic slave trade. Throughout the whole museum (which occupies just one floor) I found just one mention of our Royal family's role in the sickening transatlantic slave trade. Just one mention. Without their blessing, due to the massive profits, England would not have become the greatest slave trader on the planet.
But what also amazed me was the total lack of criticism of the Catholic Church! Why? Because the original transatlantic slave traders were the Portuguese and Spanish! I could not find one Papal Bull in the museum forbidding the transatlantic slave trade.
But so what you ask? It was centuries ago. Forget it. Move on.
Look at Africa today. Arguably the most mineral-rich continent on the planet, but it is basically a shithole. Yet we, the British, along with the cousins of our monarchy such as in Germany, France, Belgium and Italy, steamed in there, redrew borders to create nations with many fault lines based on tribal differences, making each nation ripe for manipulation while we stole the minerals from under their feet.
The point of the museum and the recent decision that the sickening transatlantic slave trade should be taught at school are designed to make you sick of our country, sick to the core, and thus make you more amenable to the Nazi EU.
I hate our role in the sickening transatlantic slave trade. Hate it. Yes, it should be taugt in schools in this and all nations. But let's have the full truth; that it had the full blessing of most major Royal families, including ours, and that of the Catholic Church.
But does that also mean we should cede sovereignty to a Nazi EU? Absolutely not.
Let's recognise the sickening transatlantic slave trade for what it was, a horrific blood stain on humanity caused and permitted by the greed of our elite, without letting it affect our decisions to cede sovereignty to an unelected elite who are agents of the descendents of those who ran the sickening transatlantic slave trade.
Heil Brown!
A VERY BRITISH INQUIRY
British interference in the Middle East had several purposes. Which took precedence is debatable, but the reasons include the creation of the bullying Zionist State of Israel to provoke international Islamic terrorism, and the discovery of the usefulness of oil for military purposes. We installed puppet kings to control the new monarchies established in the region after WW1 and used chemical weapons on Iraqis well before Saddam did.
That British interference has become even more British with the announcement by our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer of an inquiry into the Iraq War.
I listened to our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer's announcement live yesterday on BBC Radio 5 Live. His 10 minute waffle presenting the outcome of the greatest bunch of lies we have been told for decades followed by the terms of the inquiry before announcing the establishment of the inquiry was nauseating.
From our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer's description of Iraq one could believe that Iraq is now a beacon of peace and fairness and democracy. Yet still it seems that every week a huge car bomb or similar in Baghdad blows up tens of people, and the likes of Shell and BP are gradually getting their hands on Iraqi oil.
But if the war itself and the outcome of the Iraq War are so glorious then why is the inquiry being held in secret?
We were told
1. Iraq had WMD aimed out our backyard BBQs ready to blow us all away
2. Iraq was involved in 9/11
3. Iraqi oil would go to the Iraqis
None of these is true.
Our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer is cyncially creating the inquiry to reconcile the Labour Party after he bailed out the banks with trillions, but it is gloriously failing and possibly backfiring in a very big way.
Military Families Against War are opposed to the secret inquiry announced by our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer. Philip Cooper, whose son Jamie was the youngest soldier seriously injured in Iraq, said: "Ministers should not treat us like us mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed on shit."
[source : http://www.mfaw.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=476&Itemid=1]
But we must never forget, our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer signed us over to the Nazi EU after reneging on a promise he made to us. So I suppose we should all be very, very grateful for this inquiry, even if it is a complete sham and a whitewash.
Heil Brown!
That British interference has become even more British with the announcement by our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer of an inquiry into the Iraq War.
I listened to our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer's announcement live yesterday on BBC Radio 5 Live. His 10 minute waffle presenting the outcome of the greatest bunch of lies we have been told for decades followed by the terms of the inquiry before announcing the establishment of the inquiry was nauseating.
From our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer's description of Iraq one could believe that Iraq is now a beacon of peace and fairness and democracy. Yet still it seems that every week a huge car bomb or similar in Baghdad blows up tens of people, and the likes of Shell and BP are gradually getting their hands on Iraqi oil.
But if the war itself and the outcome of the Iraq War are so glorious then why is the inquiry being held in secret?
We were told
1. Iraq had WMD aimed out our backyard BBQs ready to blow us all away
2. Iraq was involved in 9/11
3. Iraqi oil would go to the Iraqis
None of these is true.
Our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer is cyncially creating the inquiry to reconcile the Labour Party after he bailed out the banks with trillions, but it is gloriously failing and possibly backfiring in a very big way.
Military Families Against War are opposed to the secret inquiry announced by our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer. Philip Cooper, whose son Jamie was the youngest soldier seriously injured in Iraq, said: "Ministers should not treat us like us mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed on shit."
[source : http://www.mfaw.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=476&Itemid=1]
But we must never forget, our glorious and 100% trustworthy Fuhrer signed us over to the Nazi EU after reneging on a promise he made to us. So I suppose we should all be very, very grateful for this inquiry, even if it is a complete sham and a whitewash.
Heil Brown!
Monday, June 15, 2009
BILDERBERG OSBORNE WRITES ABOUT HONESTY
Oik Osborne has written in The Times about honesty and dishonesty. His thesis is that the Tories are at least being honest by stating that cuts in services will be required, while Labour are not admitting that cuts will be required.
First, we can put Osborne's honesty to the test by asking him kindly and politely about his attendances at Bilderberg; what was said, by whom, and in what context?
Second, Osborne has betrayed his Nazi Bilderberg roots by assuming that cuts in services are required because Bilderberg Brown bailed out the Bilderberg banks with our money.
Here's a radical idea; why not create our own money? why should we depend on the very people we have just bailed out for our money?
There is a need for hospitals. There is a need for medical staff. People need jobs. People can construct hospitals. People can care. So why not create our own money, make it acceptable for the payment of taxes, and spend it into the economy by building hospitals and training medical staff? Is that a more acceptable solution to our predicament than killing people simply because some greedy reckless gambling banks played the market and lost, big time, and we bailed them out?!
If a form of money is acceptable for taxes then anyone will accept it, as payment for a bacon buttie, or a pair of shoes, or whatever. If people know that other people will accept a particular form of money then they can spend it...and acceptance for payment of taxes would give that money some intrinsic value.
Take our pound. A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, our pound was physical. It was one troy ounce of silver. But in the last few centuries our pound is NOT physical. Ask the Bank of England. Our pound is simply a number on a special computer. It is created by a human typing a number on a keyboard or by a computer program increasing a number. Nothing physical. Just an electronic concept.
So what is wrong with another special computer creating our new currency?
If anyone can answer that question...George?
==============
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6499028.ece
It's ridiculous to pretend there won't be cuts
The real dividing line between the Conservatives and Labour is not about investment but about honesty versus dishonesty
George Osborne
There is a moment in Nineteen Eighty-Four when Winston Smith realises that “in the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it...the logic of their position demanded it”. The Labour Party reached that moment last Wednesday when Gordon Brown told it that his plans to cut real spending on public services and halve capital spending equalled more “Labour investment”.
This weekend he was at it again, talking about the supposed evils of 10 per cent cuts in departmental budgets - only for the Institute for Fiscal Studies to point out that this is exactly what his own plans involve if he, like we Conservatives, promises to protect health spending.
Perhaps we should not be surprised by the simple, plain dishonesty of it all - as Winston Smith would say, the logic of the election campaign their Party Leader has decided to fight demands it. But it is intellectually fatal for the Labour movement. The big discussion in British politics for the foreseeable future will be how to tackle the debt crisis and deliver quality public services when spending is tight, and Gordon Brown has taken his party to the sidelines of that discussion. Believe me, I have seen what happens when political parties refuse to face the facts of the modern world. It condemns them to irrelevancy for a generation.
That does not mean the Conservative Party can escape our own challenge. We, like Labour politicians, have fought shy of using the “c” word - cuts. We've all been tip-toeing around one of those discredited Gordon Brown dividing lines for too long. The real dividing line is not “cut versus investment”, but honesty versus dishonesty. We should have the confidence to tell the public the truth that Britain faces a debt crisis; that existing plans show that real spending will have to be cut, whoever is elected; and that the bills of rising unemployment and the huge interest costs of a soaring national debt mean that many government departments will face budget cuts. These are statements of fact and to deny them invites ridicule.
Conservatives' confidence to talk honestly about cuts should stem from three other “c” words: context, character and credibility. Let me explain. First, the context of the debate has changed dramatically. We are not arguing any more, as we did in the 2005 election, about fixing the roof when the sun is shining. Instead we are dealing with a roof that has fallen in. According to the IMF, Britain will have the biggest budget deficit of any G20 country, far larger than at any time in our peacetime history. For the first time ever, Britain faces losing its “triple A” international credit rating because of the prospect that our national debt could exceed our national income. That would be a reputational and financial disaster. Every Briton would pay a heavy price in higher borrowing costs and even higher debts.
Second, this is an issue of character. There is endless soul-searching about how to reconnect the political system with a public that has lost all faith in it. Wouldn't a good place to start be to tell the public the truth instead of treating them like fools? Gordon Brown's claim that real spending will rise under Labour is akin to his claim that the 10p tax rise didn't hit the poor and that Alistair Darling is his first choice as Chancellor - it is just not true. It explains why the British people don't listen to him any more. David Cameron has engaged the public's attention, and respect, by telling it straight on public spending - just as he told it straight in the middle of the storm on parliamentary expenses. He said in 2008 that we could not afford Labour's previous spending plans, and set out specifically that this year's spending should be lower.
Finally, our confidence to tell people the truth stems from the credibility we have earned. By consistently putting sound money at the heart of our economic policy, by refusing to promise unfunded tax cuts in good years or support the unaffordable and ineffective VAT cut when times were tough, we have earned a reputation for fiscal responsibility. The result is that international markets are already looking beyond the next election to the prospect of a Conservative Government for reassurance that Britain will get its act together.
But we have also used the past four years to change our party and affirm our commitment to the values of our public services. We protect health spending because our priority is the NHS. We protect overseas aid spending because of our moral commitment to the poorest and the millennium goals we promised them.
Those public service values will guide the way we tackle the debt crisis. The work we have done on reform is all about improving the quality and choice of frontline services, and the professional freedom of those who work in them. It is remarkable that when the people responsible for Canada's successful fiscal consolidation in the mid-1990s gave a recent seminar at the Institute for Government, members of my team and the Shadow Cabinet joined senior civil servants to hear what they had to say. Not a single member of the Government was there.
So far we have set out some specific cuts we would make - like ID cards, quango pay, the cost of politics. And we have set out whole areas we will radically reform both to improve outcomes and get better value for money - like education and welfare. We will set out more details in due course. And of course some savings will only become apparent when we have the chance to look at the books in government.
Perhaps the most important lesson from around the world is that if you talk honestly to the public about the spending decisions that need to be taken, they will respect you and support you. It is time for the Conservatives to have that conversation with the British people.
George Osborne is Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
First, we can put Osborne's honesty to the test by asking him kindly and politely about his attendances at Bilderberg; what was said, by whom, and in what context?
Second, Osborne has betrayed his Nazi Bilderberg roots by assuming that cuts in services are required because Bilderberg Brown bailed out the Bilderberg banks with our money.
Here's a radical idea; why not create our own money? why should we depend on the very people we have just bailed out for our money?
There is a need for hospitals. There is a need for medical staff. People need jobs. People can construct hospitals. People can care. So why not create our own money, make it acceptable for the payment of taxes, and spend it into the economy by building hospitals and training medical staff? Is that a more acceptable solution to our predicament than killing people simply because some greedy reckless gambling banks played the market and lost, big time, and we bailed them out?!
If a form of money is acceptable for taxes then anyone will accept it, as payment for a bacon buttie, or a pair of shoes, or whatever. If people know that other people will accept a particular form of money then they can spend it...and acceptance for payment of taxes would give that money some intrinsic value.
Take our pound. A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, our pound was physical. It was one troy ounce of silver. But in the last few centuries our pound is NOT physical. Ask the Bank of England. Our pound is simply a number on a special computer. It is created by a human typing a number on a keyboard or by a computer program increasing a number. Nothing physical. Just an electronic concept.
So what is wrong with another special computer creating our new currency?
If anyone can answer that question...George?
==============
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6499028.ece
It's ridiculous to pretend there won't be cuts
The real dividing line between the Conservatives and Labour is not about investment but about honesty versus dishonesty
George Osborne
There is a moment in Nineteen Eighty-Four when Winston Smith realises that “in the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it...the logic of their position demanded it”. The Labour Party reached that moment last Wednesday when Gordon Brown told it that his plans to cut real spending on public services and halve capital spending equalled more “Labour investment”.
This weekend he was at it again, talking about the supposed evils of 10 per cent cuts in departmental budgets - only for the Institute for Fiscal Studies to point out that this is exactly what his own plans involve if he, like we Conservatives, promises to protect health spending.
Perhaps we should not be surprised by the simple, plain dishonesty of it all - as Winston Smith would say, the logic of the election campaign their Party Leader has decided to fight demands it. But it is intellectually fatal for the Labour movement. The big discussion in British politics for the foreseeable future will be how to tackle the debt crisis and deliver quality public services when spending is tight, and Gordon Brown has taken his party to the sidelines of that discussion. Believe me, I have seen what happens when political parties refuse to face the facts of the modern world. It condemns them to irrelevancy for a generation.
That does not mean the Conservative Party can escape our own challenge. We, like Labour politicians, have fought shy of using the “c” word - cuts. We've all been tip-toeing around one of those discredited Gordon Brown dividing lines for too long. The real dividing line is not “cut versus investment”, but honesty versus dishonesty. We should have the confidence to tell the public the truth that Britain faces a debt crisis; that existing plans show that real spending will have to be cut, whoever is elected; and that the bills of rising unemployment and the huge interest costs of a soaring national debt mean that many government departments will face budget cuts. These are statements of fact and to deny them invites ridicule.
Conservatives' confidence to talk honestly about cuts should stem from three other “c” words: context, character and credibility. Let me explain. First, the context of the debate has changed dramatically. We are not arguing any more, as we did in the 2005 election, about fixing the roof when the sun is shining. Instead we are dealing with a roof that has fallen in. According to the IMF, Britain will have the biggest budget deficit of any G20 country, far larger than at any time in our peacetime history. For the first time ever, Britain faces losing its “triple A” international credit rating because of the prospect that our national debt could exceed our national income. That would be a reputational and financial disaster. Every Briton would pay a heavy price in higher borrowing costs and even higher debts.
Second, this is an issue of character. There is endless soul-searching about how to reconnect the political system with a public that has lost all faith in it. Wouldn't a good place to start be to tell the public the truth instead of treating them like fools? Gordon Brown's claim that real spending will rise under Labour is akin to his claim that the 10p tax rise didn't hit the poor and that Alistair Darling is his first choice as Chancellor - it is just not true. It explains why the British people don't listen to him any more. David Cameron has engaged the public's attention, and respect, by telling it straight on public spending - just as he told it straight in the middle of the storm on parliamentary expenses. He said in 2008 that we could not afford Labour's previous spending plans, and set out specifically that this year's spending should be lower.
Finally, our confidence to tell people the truth stems from the credibility we have earned. By consistently putting sound money at the heart of our economic policy, by refusing to promise unfunded tax cuts in good years or support the unaffordable and ineffective VAT cut when times were tough, we have earned a reputation for fiscal responsibility. The result is that international markets are already looking beyond the next election to the prospect of a Conservative Government for reassurance that Britain will get its act together.
But we have also used the past four years to change our party and affirm our commitment to the values of our public services. We protect health spending because our priority is the NHS. We protect overseas aid spending because of our moral commitment to the poorest and the millennium goals we promised them.
Those public service values will guide the way we tackle the debt crisis. The work we have done on reform is all about improving the quality and choice of frontline services, and the professional freedom of those who work in them. It is remarkable that when the people responsible for Canada's successful fiscal consolidation in the mid-1990s gave a recent seminar at the Institute for Government, members of my team and the Shadow Cabinet joined senior civil servants to hear what they had to say. Not a single member of the Government was there.
So far we have set out some specific cuts we would make - like ID cards, quango pay, the cost of politics. And we have set out whole areas we will radically reform both to improve outcomes and get better value for money - like education and welfare. We will set out more details in due course. And of course some savings will only become apparent when we have the chance to look at the books in government.
Perhaps the most important lesson from around the world is that if you talk honestly to the public about the spending decisions that need to be taken, they will respect you and support you. It is time for the Conservatives to have that conversation with the British people.
George Osborne is Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
WHEN IS A STATE NOT A STATE? WHEN IT IS A PALESTINIAN STATE.
That cheeky chappie and Cheney chum Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that he would consider the existence of a Palestinian state, but with conditions.
These conditions include that such a Palestinian state could have no military and would not be able to protect its airspace.
In his speech yesterday he asked,
"We want both Israeli and Palestinian children to live without war...but we must ask ourselves - why has peace not yet arrived after 60 years?"
My reply would be to look at the maps of Israeli expansion from 1946 to today, the Naziesque laws that have demonised Palestinians in the eyes of many Israelis, the accompanying rise in the strength of the Israeli Police State and the theft of land and people from Palestinian families as well as land from other neighbouring nation states.
But despite the cheekiness of Netanyahu's solution, if he promises to review and cease further Israeli expansion then his proposal if implemented fairly and correctly would give us all much more peace and the time to dig the grave for the New World Order and bury it for good.
After a few years the situation could be reviewed.
We didn't ask for this situation and ideal solutions cannot be implemented immediately, but we all need the time and the peace. We neeed the time to educate all people on the manipulation we have all suffered in the last 140 years, and the peace to stop the terrorism and resulting police states across the world.
When Israelis themselves realise just how they have been used and abused by their leaders in the last 140 years I am confident that a fully sovereign Palestinian state will be welcomed by Jews all over the world.
In the meantime, such a fledgling Palestinian state should be protected by a multinational force while the New World Order plans are buried in an unmarked grave to stop the bloody Israelis declaring war or implementing Operation Bollocks and to stop them invading Palestine on engineered or the flimsiest of pretexts.
These conditions include that such a Palestinian state could have no military and would not be able to protect its airspace.
In his speech yesterday he asked,
"We want both Israeli and Palestinian children to live without war...but we must ask ourselves - why has peace not yet arrived after 60 years?"
My reply would be to look at the maps of Israeli expansion from 1946 to today, the Naziesque laws that have demonised Palestinians in the eyes of many Israelis, the accompanying rise in the strength of the Israeli Police State and the theft of land and people from Palestinian families as well as land from other neighbouring nation states.
But despite the cheekiness of Netanyahu's solution, if he promises to review and cease further Israeli expansion then his proposal if implemented fairly and correctly would give us all much more peace and the time to dig the grave for the New World Order and bury it for good.
After a few years the situation could be reviewed.
We didn't ask for this situation and ideal solutions cannot be implemented immediately, but we all need the time and the peace. We neeed the time to educate all people on the manipulation we have all suffered in the last 140 years, and the peace to stop the terrorism and resulting police states across the world.
When Israelis themselves realise just how they have been used and abused by their leaders in the last 140 years I am confident that a fully sovereign Palestinian state will be welcomed by Jews all over the world.
In the meantime, such a fledgling Palestinian state should be protected by a multinational force while the New World Order plans are buried in an unmarked grave to stop the bloody Israelis declaring war or implementing Operation Bollocks and to stop them invading Palestine on engineered or the flimsiest of pretexts.
READ MY LIPS. NO NEW WORLD ORDER.
The very public emergence of Bilderberg from the political scum in the last few months indicates that they are increasngly desperate to impose themselves and their tyrannical and genocidal agenda upon us all. This is because their plans have been stalled and/or wrecked by infiltrators who are against their children and grandchildren being microchipped, at significant risk of becoming the prey of paedophiles, fighting wars that don't benefit them and possibly being brainwashed into enacting euthanasian laws that will lead to the mass killing of many parents and grandparents in order to 'save the planet'.
And with this emergence, just like with the salmon, comes the risk of being eaten alive.
Read my lips. No New World Order.
And with this emergence, just like with the salmon, comes the risk of being eaten alive.
Read my lips. No New World Order.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
BIG BILDERBERG KEN OVERRULES CAMERON ON THE LISBON TREATY!!
The Bilderberg Party is really revealing itself now.
In the last few months we have seen
1. Bilderberg Brown bail out the greedy reckless gambling banks, particularly RBS which had two Bilderbergers on its board, one of whom, Sir Peter Sutherland, is on the Bilderberg steering committee
2. Bilderberg Brown recall Bilderberg Mandelson from the political graveyard to save his Bilderberg arse and stop the possibility of a Bilderberg-free Downing Street after a general election or internal Labour election
3. senior Tory Bilderbergers and their minions 'advised', i.e. ordered, David Cameron to cease his hostility to the EU and the Treaty of Lisbon
But today big Ken Clarke really took the limeade by stating that the Tories would not withdraw from the Treaty of Lisbon if Ireland voted 'yes' later this year.
But what authority does Clarke have to state this?
ABSOLUTELY NONE!! Clarke is Shadow Business Secretary, not exactly the most powerful position in the Shadow Cabinet is it, and far from Foreign Secretary?
So why does Clark have the balls to boldly state Tory Foreign Policy without informing Cameron?
Because he is Bilderberg in the House of Commons.
Big Ken thinks he can do or say anything because he knows he has the full backing of Bilderberg everywhere;
in the Labour Party
in the media
in Nazi NATO
in the Nazi banks
in the Nazi EU
Everywhere the Bilderberg cockroaches are itching to implement their one world government, deathly microchips and all, and the Nazi EU is absolutley essential to their plans.
IT MUST BE STOPPED!
===========================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192981/Ken-Clarke-blows-lid-Tory-plans-ditch-constitution-referendum-Irish-vote-yes-Treaty.html
Ken Clarke blows lid on Tory plans to ditch constitution referendum if Irish vote yes to Treaty
By James Chapman
The revised EU constitution will not be torn up if it has been implemented by the time the Tories win power, Kenneth Clarke declared today.
The shadow business secretary prompted fury among Euro-sceptic colleagues by insisting the controversial Lisbon Treaty would not be unpicked if all 27 member states succeed in forcing it into law before the next election.
Instead, the pro-EU Mr Clarke said he envisaged only 'sensible discussions... in limited areas' about the balance of power between Westminster and Brussels.
The shadow business secretary's remarks caused consternation in Tory high command.
The promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was central to the party's campaign for EU Parliament elections earlier this month.
Gordon Brown has ditched Labour's manifesto promise at the last election to ask for voters' approval in a referendum.
The Prime Minister insists that the constitutional element of the treaty has been abandoned, making a vote unnecessary.
But most other EU leaders admit that it is virtually the same as the original version, which was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005.
Ireland voted against the latest version last year. The blueprint will still create the first full-time EU president and foreign affairs chief, give the EU its own legal personality like a nation state, and do away with Britain's right to reject EU proposals in more than 40 policy areas.
Tory leader David Cameron has resisted giving any firm pledge on what he would do if the treaty has already been forced into law by the time they take office.
Euro-sceptic Tory MPs have insisted there should be a referendum even if the treaty is already in place.
But critics have long said attempting to tear up a treaty after it has been agreed and made law across Europe would be fraught with difficulty.
It appears increasingly likely that the Lisbon Treaty will have been implemented before the next election, with the Irish expected to vote 'yes' in a re-run referendum this autumn.
Yesterday Mr Clarke told BBC1's The Politics Show: 'If the Irish referendum endorses the treaty and ratification comes into effect, then our settled policy is quite clear that the treaty will not be reopened.
'But it has also been said by David Cameron - and he means it - that it will not rest there, and he will want to start discussions on divisions of competence between national states and the centre of the EU.
'I think we will want to open negotiations with the EU about a return of some responsibilities, particularly in employment law, to individual nation states.
'These will be sensible negotiations, and I actually don't think that the British will be alone.'
Mr Clarke added: 'I don't think anybody in Europe, including me, is in the mood for any more tedious debates about treaties, which have gone on for far too long, which is why this needs to be resolved.
'We are talking about sensible discussions about the proper division of responsibilities between nations and the EU in limited areas.'
Hardline Eurosceptic Tory MP Bill Cash said: 'I condemn Kenneth Clarke's statement regarding the Lisbon Treaty if the Irish vote "yes".
'Upon what authority has Mr Clarke made it? It is essential that we have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty irrespective of the Irish vote, and this is supported by a very substantial number of Conservative MPs.
'It appears that Kenneth Clarke has reinvented unilaterally Conservative Party policy on the whole of the Lisbon Treaty and European policy. This is quite extraordinary.'
Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, said: 'Ken Clarke has let the cat out of the bag.
'The Conservatives have no intention of holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and all their promises during the European election campaign about holding one can now be seen to be sheer, brass-necked dishonesty.'
Labour's Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: 'Conservative policy on Europe is now in disarray.
'Kenneth Clarke knows that Tory policy "not to let matters rest" on the Lisbon treaty is hare-brained and dangerous for British business, but his leader and shadow foreign secretary are committed to it.
'The country deserves a clear answer: has Conservative policy flip-flopped, or are the Conservatives just divided and incredible in their foreign policy?'
A Conservative spokesman insisted: 'There is no change to Conservative policy. As Ken Clarke explained, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified and in force across the EU by the time of the election of a Conservative Government, we have always made clear that we would not let matters rest there.
'In other words, we would not regard these matters as closed. We would regard political integration as having gone too far.
'If that situation arises, we will set out how we would respond. We have consistently made clear, for example, that the return of social and employment legislation to UK control would be a major goal for a Conservative Government.
'But today the Treaty is not in force and not ratified in all member states. That is why Gordon Brown should give the British people a referendum on it right now.'
In the last few months we have seen
1. Bilderberg Brown bail out the greedy reckless gambling banks, particularly RBS which had two Bilderbergers on its board, one of whom, Sir Peter Sutherland, is on the Bilderberg steering committee
2. Bilderberg Brown recall Bilderberg Mandelson from the political graveyard to save his Bilderberg arse and stop the possibility of a Bilderberg-free Downing Street after a general election or internal Labour election
3. senior Tory Bilderbergers and their minions 'advised', i.e. ordered, David Cameron to cease his hostility to the EU and the Treaty of Lisbon
But today big Ken Clarke really took the limeade by stating that the Tories would not withdraw from the Treaty of Lisbon if Ireland voted 'yes' later this year.
But what authority does Clarke have to state this?
ABSOLUTELY NONE!! Clarke is Shadow Business Secretary, not exactly the most powerful position in the Shadow Cabinet is it, and far from Foreign Secretary?
So why does Clark have the balls to boldly state Tory Foreign Policy without informing Cameron?
Because he is Bilderberg in the House of Commons.
Big Ken thinks he can do or say anything because he knows he has the full backing of Bilderberg everywhere;
in the Labour Party
in the media
in Nazi NATO
in the Nazi banks
in the Nazi EU
Everywhere the Bilderberg cockroaches are itching to implement their one world government, deathly microchips and all, and the Nazi EU is absolutley essential to their plans.
IT MUST BE STOPPED!
===========================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192981/Ken-Clarke-blows-lid-Tory-plans-ditch-constitution-referendum-Irish-vote-yes-Treaty.html
Ken Clarke blows lid on Tory plans to ditch constitution referendum if Irish vote yes to Treaty
By James Chapman
The revised EU constitution will not be torn up if it has been implemented by the time the Tories win power, Kenneth Clarke declared today.
The shadow business secretary prompted fury among Euro-sceptic colleagues by insisting the controversial Lisbon Treaty would not be unpicked if all 27 member states succeed in forcing it into law before the next election.
Instead, the pro-EU Mr Clarke said he envisaged only 'sensible discussions... in limited areas' about the balance of power between Westminster and Brussels.
The shadow business secretary's remarks caused consternation in Tory high command.
The promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was central to the party's campaign for EU Parliament elections earlier this month.
Gordon Brown has ditched Labour's manifesto promise at the last election to ask for voters' approval in a referendum.
The Prime Minister insists that the constitutional element of the treaty has been abandoned, making a vote unnecessary.
But most other EU leaders admit that it is virtually the same as the original version, which was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005.
Ireland voted against the latest version last year. The blueprint will still create the first full-time EU president and foreign affairs chief, give the EU its own legal personality like a nation state, and do away with Britain's right to reject EU proposals in more than 40 policy areas.
Tory leader David Cameron has resisted giving any firm pledge on what he would do if the treaty has already been forced into law by the time they take office.
Euro-sceptic Tory MPs have insisted there should be a referendum even if the treaty is already in place.
But critics have long said attempting to tear up a treaty after it has been agreed and made law across Europe would be fraught with difficulty.
It appears increasingly likely that the Lisbon Treaty will have been implemented before the next election, with the Irish expected to vote 'yes' in a re-run referendum this autumn.
Yesterday Mr Clarke told BBC1's The Politics Show: 'If the Irish referendum endorses the treaty and ratification comes into effect, then our settled policy is quite clear that the treaty will not be reopened.
'But it has also been said by David Cameron - and he means it - that it will not rest there, and he will want to start discussions on divisions of competence between national states and the centre of the EU.
'I think we will want to open negotiations with the EU about a return of some responsibilities, particularly in employment law, to individual nation states.
'These will be sensible negotiations, and I actually don't think that the British will be alone.'
Mr Clarke added: 'I don't think anybody in Europe, including me, is in the mood for any more tedious debates about treaties, which have gone on for far too long, which is why this needs to be resolved.
'We are talking about sensible discussions about the proper division of responsibilities between nations and the EU in limited areas.'
Hardline Eurosceptic Tory MP Bill Cash said: 'I condemn Kenneth Clarke's statement regarding the Lisbon Treaty if the Irish vote "yes".
'Upon what authority has Mr Clarke made it? It is essential that we have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty irrespective of the Irish vote, and this is supported by a very substantial number of Conservative MPs.
'It appears that Kenneth Clarke has reinvented unilaterally Conservative Party policy on the whole of the Lisbon Treaty and European policy. This is quite extraordinary.'
Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, said: 'Ken Clarke has let the cat out of the bag.
'The Conservatives have no intention of holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and all their promises during the European election campaign about holding one can now be seen to be sheer, brass-necked dishonesty.'
Labour's Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: 'Conservative policy on Europe is now in disarray.
'Kenneth Clarke knows that Tory policy "not to let matters rest" on the Lisbon treaty is hare-brained and dangerous for British business, but his leader and shadow foreign secretary are committed to it.
'The country deserves a clear answer: has Conservative policy flip-flopped, or are the Conservatives just divided and incredible in their foreign policy?'
A Conservative spokesman insisted: 'There is no change to Conservative policy. As Ken Clarke explained, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified and in force across the EU by the time of the election of a Conservative Government, we have always made clear that we would not let matters rest there.
'In other words, we would not regard these matters as closed. We would regard political integration as having gone too far.
'If that situation arises, we will set out how we would respond. We have consistently made clear, for example, that the return of social and employment legislation to UK control would be a major goal for a Conservative Government.
'But today the Treaty is not in force and not ratified in all member states. That is why Gordon Brown should give the British people a referendum on it right now.'
Saturday, June 13, 2009
THE EURO
Peter Mandelson, Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, UK First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council ad driver of Rothschild Ferraris (phew, that took some saying), has let the cat out of the bag.
He, with fellow Bilderberger Ed Balls, has recently protected Gordon Brown, the traitor who signed us into the Nazi EU by signing the Treaty of Lisbon, from being kicked out of Number 10, after Brown brought his alleged sworn enemy back from the political graveyard and made him arguably more powerful than Brown himself.
And now Mandelson has stated that the aim of Labour is to ditch the Pound and adopt the Euro.
I will never get sick of saying this, but it has to be said again and again and again;
The EU is the outome of the Nazis Red House Report.
It was agreed upon at the Bilderberg 1955 meeting.
Bilderberg was started by a card-carrying Nazi and the financiers and supporters of the Nazis.
Mandelson, Brown and Balls are Bilderbergers.
Come on, peeps!
Yesterday the Queen made Mandelson the Lord President of the Privy Council, while at the same time he wants us to ditch the Pound (with the Queen's image) in favour of a currency to be issued by the Nazi EU!
Please make use of the alleged great education this nation (I can still just about use that word without fear of the thought cops knocking at my door) gave you and realise just how much the conspiracy to install a tyrannical world government has progressed. It is not there yet but not all the pieces are in place. There is still some way to go, due to the shear scale of the plan; to hoodwink over 6 billion people into accepting a world government.
Once the EU and other continental governments have enough power over their constituent nations (that word again) then I predict a new world war after which those continental governments will cede total sovereignty to a world government.
[a loud knock at the door]
Excuse me. There is someone at the door...
====================
From http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/107214/Mandelson-We-must-join-Euro
MANDELSON: WE MUST JOIN EURO
Story Image
Mandelson has shocked ministers with his stance
Saturday June 13,2009
By Gabriel Milland
Comment Speech Bubble Have your say(31)
PETER Mandelson sparked fury yesterday when he let slip that ditching the pound in favour of the euro remains an “important objective” for Labour.
Speaking in Berlin, Lord Mandelson insisted the euro had been a great success during the global downturn.
The obsessively pro-Europe First Secretary of State’s comments caused widespread alarm at Westminster, especially as Labour has repeatedly failed to honour its manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the European treaty.
In a revealing insight into Government thinking, Lord Mandelson, who was yesterday sworn in by the Queen as Lord President of the Privy Council, said: “Does it remain an important objective for Britain to clear that the euro has been a great success in anchoring its eurozone members during the financial crisis.
“I hope people will recognise that this represents a major vindication for the single currency.”
It is deeply disturbing that the man who now makes most of the Government’s policies has declared that Britain should join the euro
The Daily Express recently revealed that the EU’s top official said the UK was “closer than ever before” to entering the single currency.
Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso added that the “people who matter in Britain now want to join the euro”.
Those people obviously include Lord Mandelson. Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague yesterday described his comments as extremely alarming.
“It is deeply disturbing that the man who now makes most of the Government’s policies has declared that Britain should join the euro,” he said.
“The fact is that if we had scrapped the pound interest rates would have been lower in the boom and would now be higher.
“Under the euro, Gordon Brown’s boom and bust would have been even deeper.
“Lord Mandelson’s failure to learn this lesson shows how bereft Labour are of fresh thinking. This Government is stuck in the obsessions of the past.
"There are no circumstances in which the next Conservative government will propose joining the euro.”
The money markets reacted quickly to Lord Mandelson’s comments, knocking almost two cents off the value of the pound against the US dollar. The pound was also down against the euro.
There was criticism of Lord Mandelson’s claim that the euro had shielded its members from the worst of the recession.
Derek Scott, a former economic adviser to Tony Blair, insisted it was nonsense to see joining the euro as improving Britain’s prospects.
“Eurozone membership is not the answer,” he said. “We’re seeing German output falling by six per cent and Spain’s unemployment heading for 25 per cent – definitely not success stories.”
Britain’s most recent figures show the economy shrinking by a disastrous 4.1 per cent. But the eurozone is faring even worse at 4.8 per cent.
It is not the first time Lord Mandelson, who served four years as Britain’s EU Commissioner in Brussels, has been at the centre of a row over the single currency.
But the long-time enthusiast for European integration now has unprecedented influence over a badly weakened Prime Minister.
Number 10’s official policy on the euro remains unchanged – that a clear and unambiguous case for UK membership has not at the present time been made.
Ministers have also repeatedly insisted that there would be a referendum on joining up.
He, with fellow Bilderberger Ed Balls, has recently protected Gordon Brown, the traitor who signed us into the Nazi EU by signing the Treaty of Lisbon, from being kicked out of Number 10, after Brown brought his alleged sworn enemy back from the political graveyard and made him arguably more powerful than Brown himself.
And now Mandelson has stated that the aim of Labour is to ditch the Pound and adopt the Euro.
I will never get sick of saying this, but it has to be said again and again and again;
The EU is the outome of the Nazis Red House Report.
It was agreed upon at the Bilderberg 1955 meeting.
Bilderberg was started by a card-carrying Nazi and the financiers and supporters of the Nazis.
Mandelson, Brown and Balls are Bilderbergers.
Come on, peeps!
Yesterday the Queen made Mandelson the Lord President of the Privy Council, while at the same time he wants us to ditch the Pound (with the Queen's image) in favour of a currency to be issued by the Nazi EU!
Please make use of the alleged great education this nation (I can still just about use that word without fear of the thought cops knocking at my door) gave you and realise just how much the conspiracy to install a tyrannical world government has progressed. It is not there yet but not all the pieces are in place. There is still some way to go, due to the shear scale of the plan; to hoodwink over 6 billion people into accepting a world government.
Once the EU and other continental governments have enough power over their constituent nations (that word again) then I predict a new world war after which those continental governments will cede total sovereignty to a world government.
[a loud knock at the door]
Excuse me. There is someone at the door...
====================
From http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/107214/Mandelson-We-must-join-Euro
MANDELSON: WE MUST JOIN EURO
Story Image
Mandelson has shocked ministers with his stance
Saturday June 13,2009
By Gabriel Milland
Comment Speech Bubble Have your say(31)
PETER Mandelson sparked fury yesterday when he let slip that ditching the pound in favour of the euro remains an “important objective” for Labour.
Speaking in Berlin, Lord Mandelson insisted the euro had been a great success during the global downturn.
The obsessively pro-Europe First Secretary of State’s comments caused widespread alarm at Westminster, especially as Labour has repeatedly failed to honour its manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the European treaty.
In a revealing insight into Government thinking, Lord Mandelson, who was yesterday sworn in by the Queen as Lord President of the Privy Council, said: “Does it remain an important objective for Britain to clear that the euro has been a great success in anchoring its eurozone members during the financial crisis.
“I hope people will recognise that this represents a major vindication for the single currency.”
It is deeply disturbing that the man who now makes most of the Government’s policies has declared that Britain should join the euro
The Daily Express recently revealed that the EU’s top official said the UK was “closer than ever before” to entering the single currency.
Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso added that the “people who matter in Britain now want to join the euro”.
Those people obviously include Lord Mandelson. Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague yesterday described his comments as extremely alarming.
“It is deeply disturbing that the man who now makes most of the Government’s policies has declared that Britain should join the euro,” he said.
“The fact is that if we had scrapped the pound interest rates would have been lower in the boom and would now be higher.
“Under the euro, Gordon Brown’s boom and bust would have been even deeper.
“Lord Mandelson’s failure to learn this lesson shows how bereft Labour are of fresh thinking. This Government is stuck in the obsessions of the past.
"There are no circumstances in which the next Conservative government will propose joining the euro.”
The money markets reacted quickly to Lord Mandelson’s comments, knocking almost two cents off the value of the pound against the US dollar. The pound was also down against the euro.
There was criticism of Lord Mandelson’s claim that the euro had shielded its members from the worst of the recession.
Derek Scott, a former economic adviser to Tony Blair, insisted it was nonsense to see joining the euro as improving Britain’s prospects.
“Eurozone membership is not the answer,” he said. “We’re seeing German output falling by six per cent and Spain’s unemployment heading for 25 per cent – definitely not success stories.”
Britain’s most recent figures show the economy shrinking by a disastrous 4.1 per cent. But the eurozone is faring even worse at 4.8 per cent.
It is not the first time Lord Mandelson, who served four years as Britain’s EU Commissioner in Brussels, has been at the centre of a row over the single currency.
But the long-time enthusiast for European integration now has unprecedented influence over a badly weakened Prime Minister.
Number 10’s official policy on the euro remains unchanged – that a clear and unambiguous case for UK membership has not at the present time been made.
Ministers have also repeatedly insisted that there would be a referendum on joining up.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
COME BACK DOCTOR DEATH. ALL IS FORGIVEN.
Dr Death rolled into town last month, peddling his DIY suicide kit. For whatever reason he was allowed into the country to persuade old people to buy his suicide kit and kill themselves.
I warned that, due to the deliberately-engineered financial crisis, we would see massive cuts in the NHS and pressure would be put on services in a big way for years to come, and one way to save money is to kill people.
And when I mean kill people I mean kill your family members.
So when I woke up this morning the first thing I heard was Andy Burnham trying to slowly get us used to the idea of massive cuts in the NHS.
If I were a cynical money-grabbing heartless stockbroker I would be buying shares in Dr Death. His services and kits will be needed quite a lot soon...and not just here in the UK but across the world.
Phrases such as 'tough decisions' will be uttered more and more frequently as the ideas of euthanasia and killing people in the name of saving the planet are pushed.
The problem, if it is a problem, is that there are just too many of us to control. We need culling.
That's why the microchip implant is being pushed.
But where has this cult of death come from?
Why have we bailed out the greedy reckless gambling bankers with trillions while preparing ourselves for the society portrayed in Soylent Green?
Because our glorious and 100% trustworthy Prime Minister has betrayed us, not just into the Nazi EU but by supporting every major step towards a New World Order, a world government run by warmongering megalomaniacs with a fetish for tyranny and mass genocide.
Ask yourself this one question : why did our Fuhrer quickly and without question bail out the banks with trillions of our hard-earned tax money while preparing to implement Nazi-style 'healthcare' to save money?
This is a sick country run by sick MPs who have not a clue.
I just hope they see through the bullshit when their grandchildren are being compulsorily microchipped and their mothers and fathers are being refused treatments that would save their lives in order to save money.
So what is the answer?
Tell the banks to F off. They've leeched off us for far too long. We then create our own money for whatever we want; hospitals, transport infrastructure, schools and universities.
Tell the Nazi EU to F off. They've leeched off us for far too long. We then create our own laws, for us.
It's dead easy. Honest.
I warned that, due to the deliberately-engineered financial crisis, we would see massive cuts in the NHS and pressure would be put on services in a big way for years to come, and one way to save money is to kill people.
And when I mean kill people I mean kill your family members.
So when I woke up this morning the first thing I heard was Andy Burnham trying to slowly get us used to the idea of massive cuts in the NHS.
If I were a cynical money-grabbing heartless stockbroker I would be buying shares in Dr Death. His services and kits will be needed quite a lot soon...and not just here in the UK but across the world.
Phrases such as 'tough decisions' will be uttered more and more frequently as the ideas of euthanasia and killing people in the name of saving the planet are pushed.
The problem, if it is a problem, is that there are just too many of us to control. We need culling.
That's why the microchip implant is being pushed.
But where has this cult of death come from?
Why have we bailed out the greedy reckless gambling bankers with trillions while preparing ourselves for the society portrayed in Soylent Green?
Because our glorious and 100% trustworthy Prime Minister has betrayed us, not just into the Nazi EU but by supporting every major step towards a New World Order, a world government run by warmongering megalomaniacs with a fetish for tyranny and mass genocide.
Ask yourself this one question : why did our Fuhrer quickly and without question bail out the banks with trillions of our hard-earned tax money while preparing to implement Nazi-style 'healthcare' to save money?
This is a sick country run by sick MPs who have not a clue.
I just hope they see through the bullshit when their grandchildren are being compulsorily microchipped and their mothers and fathers are being refused treatments that would save their lives in order to save money.
So what is the answer?
Tell the banks to F off. They've leeched off us for far too long. We then create our own money for whatever we want; hospitals, transport infrastructure, schools and universities.
Tell the Nazi EU to F off. They've leeched off us for far too long. We then create our own laws, for us.
It's dead easy. Honest.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
WHAT JUST HAPPENED?
Labour just suffered the worst election results in ages.
Several members of the Cabinet resigned.
Yet the Prime Minister survives.
How?
Because of one man...Peter Mandelson.
So who is Mandelson?
Allegedly Mandelson was an enemy of Brown. Yet he is now arguably the most powerful man in the government, more powerful than Brown himself, after Brown brought Mandelson back into government!
How many members of the Labour Party are Bilderbergers? There are only a handful, because that is all it takes, and they are invariably in the most powerful positions in government.
Mandelson? Bilderberg.
Brown? Bilderberg.
Balls? Bilderberg.
What about Blair? Blair is no longer in government. He is supposed to be trying to stop the Middle East from blowing up, but not doing a good job. He is being proposed as the President of the EU. He and some of his allies did write against Brown, possibly encouraging a coup against Brown. But why would Mandelson save Brown?
In case you have forgotten there has just been a global banking crisis, arguably engineered by Brown and Balls after they told the FSA to let the The City of London get on with their greedy reckless gambling, but definitely engineered behind the closed doors of Bilderberg meetings during this decade. The result of the crisis has been the strengthening of the IMF, which in the last few decades has been run by a Bilderberger. The IMF already has plans to control the whole world economy. I wonder for whose benefit the IMF will run the global economy?
To deflect the public anger away from the banks the MPs expenses farce was brought to the attention of the public by a bona fide MI5-controlled newspaper after a former MI6 agent suddenly became altruistic and gave that newspaper the details.
All this was bound to drag Brown into big, big trouble. And it did. The public wanted blood...a general election to clean out the House of Commons.
So who did Brown bring back from the dead? Rothschild friend, very pro-EU and fellow Bilderberger Peter Mandelson!
Now Brown has been saved.
So why would Brown be saved? Because there is no guarantee that a Bilderberger and/or pro-EU leader would be elected. The EU is absolutely essential to the plan. That's why Brown reneged on a massive promise to give us a referendum on The Treaty of Lisbon and signed it with a knowing smile.
If Brown had gone, what would have happened?
1. a general election, probably resulting in anti-EU David Cameron being elected PM,
2. another internal election in the Labour Party with the outcome unsure, but Alan Johnson, a non-Bilderberger, may well have won that
But for now Bilderberg is still in control of Great Britain, just about by the skin of their teeth, but their ability to retain that control is now in question and their manipulations are out in the open, there for all to see.
And to top it all, Mrs Obama popped into Number 10 to take tea with Mrs Brown!
Remember this and tell your microchipped children and grandchildren : Bilderberg Brown signed us over to the Bilderberg Nazi-EU.
Heil Brown!
Several members of the Cabinet resigned.
Yet the Prime Minister survives.
How?
Because of one man...Peter Mandelson.
So who is Mandelson?
Allegedly Mandelson was an enemy of Brown. Yet he is now arguably the most powerful man in the government, more powerful than Brown himself, after Brown brought Mandelson back into government!
How many members of the Labour Party are Bilderbergers? There are only a handful, because that is all it takes, and they are invariably in the most powerful positions in government.
Mandelson? Bilderberg.
Brown? Bilderberg.
Balls? Bilderberg.
What about Blair? Blair is no longer in government. He is supposed to be trying to stop the Middle East from blowing up, but not doing a good job. He is being proposed as the President of the EU. He and some of his allies did write against Brown, possibly encouraging a coup against Brown. But why would Mandelson save Brown?
In case you have forgotten there has just been a global banking crisis, arguably engineered by Brown and Balls after they told the FSA to let the The City of London get on with their greedy reckless gambling, but definitely engineered behind the closed doors of Bilderberg meetings during this decade. The result of the crisis has been the strengthening of the IMF, which in the last few decades has been run by a Bilderberger. The IMF already has plans to control the whole world economy. I wonder for whose benefit the IMF will run the global economy?
To deflect the public anger away from the banks the MPs expenses farce was brought to the attention of the public by a bona fide MI5-controlled newspaper after a former MI6 agent suddenly became altruistic and gave that newspaper the details.
All this was bound to drag Brown into big, big trouble. And it did. The public wanted blood...a general election to clean out the House of Commons.
So who did Brown bring back from the dead? Rothschild friend, very pro-EU and fellow Bilderberger Peter Mandelson!
Now Brown has been saved.
So why would Brown be saved? Because there is no guarantee that a Bilderberger and/or pro-EU leader would be elected. The EU is absolutely essential to the plan. That's why Brown reneged on a massive promise to give us a referendum on The Treaty of Lisbon and signed it with a knowing smile.
If Brown had gone, what would have happened?
1. a general election, probably resulting in anti-EU David Cameron being elected PM,
2. another internal election in the Labour Party with the outcome unsure, but Alan Johnson, a non-Bilderberger, may well have won that
But for now Bilderberg is still in control of Great Britain, just about by the skin of their teeth, but their ability to retain that control is now in question and their manipulations are out in the open, there for all to see.
And to top it all, Mrs Obama popped into Number 10 to take tea with Mrs Brown!
Remember this and tell your microchipped children and grandchildren : Bilderberg Brown signed us over to the Bilderberg Nazi-EU.
Heil Brown!
Monday, June 08, 2009
THE FT NOW TELLS CAMERON TO DROP HIS EUROSKEPTICISM
It has not even been 24 hours since the first election results were released and already the FT, the paper that thinks it runs the world, in today's editorial is demanding that David Cameron drop his attitude towards Europe and the Treaty of Lisbon.
The Europe Project is absolutely crucial to the plans of the Old World Order.
Just look outside your office or front window and look at what is happening around the world;
The European Union
The North American Union
The African Union
The Asia-Pacific Union
The Union of South American Nations
These continental governments are very slowly assuming more and more control over their constituent nation states, such that when a nuclear war or another large scale war occurs ( and I predict it will be over the Israel-Palestine issue) this handful of continental governments can be very easily formed into one world government.
And guess who will control that world government? The same people who brought us Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung. You know, all the really nasty genocidal bastards who have no problem with tyranny and mass genocide.
The Treaty of Lisbon is essential to this Bilderberg plan.
That's why Bilderberg Brown reneged on his promise to give us a referendum and signed the Treaty of Lisbon with a knowing smile.
If Cameron takes us out of the Treaty of Lisbon then the Bilderberg Europe Project will be destroyed.
That's why Tory Bilderberg Grandees and their minions and now the FT is ordering Cameron to drop his plan to take us out of Europe and the Treaty of Lisbon.
=============================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7df505b4-5390-11de-be08-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F7df505b4-5390-11de-be08-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fhome%2Fuk
Tories march to Euro-impotence
Published: June 7 2009 19:57 | Last updated: June 7 2009 19:57
The UK government and Gordon Brown’s Labour party have received a terrible drubbing in the European and local elections – as bad as that for any ruling party across the continent. David Cameron’s Conservatives could scarcely have asked for more. It leaves them in pole position to win the next general election. That could come sooner rather than later if Mr Brown cannot stop the civil war within his own party.
Yet on one vital issue, Mr Cameron continues to behave as if he will be eternally in opposition: his party’s attitude towards the European Union. His determination to quit the dominant centre-right alliance in the European parliament, and thus alienate his most important potential partners in Europe – Germany’s Angela Merkel and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France – is foolish and counter-productive. It is time to reconsider.
The Europe Project is absolutely crucial to the plans of the Old World Order.
Just look outside your office or front window and look at what is happening around the world;
The European Union
The North American Union
The African Union
The Asia-Pacific Union
The Union of South American Nations
These continental governments are very slowly assuming more and more control over their constituent nation states, such that when a nuclear war or another large scale war occurs ( and I predict it will be over the Israel-Palestine issue) this handful of continental governments can be very easily formed into one world government.
And guess who will control that world government? The same people who brought us Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung. You know, all the really nasty genocidal bastards who have no problem with tyranny and mass genocide.
The Treaty of Lisbon is essential to this Bilderberg plan.
That's why Bilderberg Brown reneged on his promise to give us a referendum and signed the Treaty of Lisbon with a knowing smile.
If Cameron takes us out of the Treaty of Lisbon then the Bilderberg Europe Project will be destroyed.
That's why Tory Bilderberg Grandees and their minions and now the FT is ordering Cameron to drop his plan to take us out of Europe and the Treaty of Lisbon.
=============================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7df505b4-5390-11de-be08-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F7df505b4-5390-11de-be08-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fhome%2Fuk
Tories march to Euro-impotence
Published: June 7 2009 19:57 | Last updated: June 7 2009 19:57
The UK government and Gordon Brown’s Labour party have received a terrible drubbing in the European and local elections – as bad as that for any ruling party across the continent. David Cameron’s Conservatives could scarcely have asked for more. It leaves them in pole position to win the next general election. That could come sooner rather than later if Mr Brown cannot stop the civil war within his own party.
Yet on one vital issue, Mr Cameron continues to behave as if he will be eternally in opposition: his party’s attitude towards the European Union. His determination to quit the dominant centre-right alliance in the European parliament, and thus alienate his most important potential partners in Europe – Germany’s Angela Merkel and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France – is foolish and counter-productive. It is time to reconsider.
BROWN MUST GO BUT DON'T GIVE US BALLS INSTEAD
Great Britain must be Bilderberg-free as soon as possible.
And Ed Balls must not be allowed anywhere near Number 10.
And Ed Balls must not be allowed anywhere near Number 10.
BROWN GETS A KICK IN HIS EUROPEAN BALLS
Ouch!!
He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself...and go immediately.
To be fair he inherited a poisoned chalice, but he even had a hand in that by supporting the war on Iraq.
But to have signed the Treaty of Lisbon with a knowing smile after promising us, THE WHOLE OF THE UK, a referendum and reneging on that promise is a massive indicator of how much a traitor and selfish man he is.
Napoleon is NOT always right.
Under his watch the House of Commons became Animal Farm.
HE HAS TO GO NOW!
The European Union is an extension of the Nazi Empire.
Read "IS THE EUROPEAN UNION A NAZI UNION?"
He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself...and go immediately.
To be fair he inherited a poisoned chalice, but he even had a hand in that by supporting the war on Iraq.
But to have signed the Treaty of Lisbon with a knowing smile after promising us, THE WHOLE OF THE UK, a referendum and reneging on that promise is a massive indicator of how much a traitor and selfish man he is.
Napoleon is NOT always right.
Under his watch the House of Commons became Animal Farm.
HE HAS TO GO NOW!
The European Union is an extension of the Nazi Empire.
Read "IS THE EUROPEAN UNION A NAZI UNION?"
Sunday, June 07, 2009
GORBACHEV CALLS FOR GLOBAL PERESTROIKA
Writing in today's The Washington Post, the former leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev calls for global Perestroika, but in particular in the USA.
In his article Gorbachev
1. highlights how nations can improve themselves when they tell the IMF to F off
2. attacks the current economic structure that greatly benefits a few at the top at the expense of the rest of the people
3. calls for "a cleaner environment, well-functioning infrastructure and public transportation, sound education and health systems and affordable housing."
It is a very positive article and many would agree with it, and I hope many put his words into action.
However, the last time Gorbachev called for Perestroika there were a series of coups and Russia ended up being economically raped for a decade by the Rothschild crew.
I am not claiming that Gorbachev knew the eventual outcome of his reforms, but we must all be very wary that good intentions can be, and often are, hijacked for bad intentions.
Therefore any such perestroika must be taken very, very, very carefully.
=============================
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060501966_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
We Had Our Perestroika. It's High Time for Yours.
By Mikhail Gorbachev
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Years ago, as the Cold War was coming to an end, I said to my fellow leaders around the globe: The world is on the cusp of great events, and in the face of new challenges all of us will have to change, you as well as we. For the most part, the reaction was polite but skeptical silence.
In recent years, however, during speaking tours in the United States before university audiences and business groups, I have often told listeners that I feel Americans need their own change -- a perestroika, not like the one in my country, but an American perestroika -- and the reaction has been markedly different. Halls filled with thousands of people have responded with applause.
Over time, my remark has prompted all kinds of comments. Some have reacted with understanding. Others have objected, sometimes sarcastically, suggesting that I want the United States to experience upheaval, just like the former Soviet Union. In my country, particularly caustic reactions have come from the opponents of perestroika, people with short memories and a deficit of conscience. And although most of my critics surely understand that I am not equating the United States with the Soviet Union in its final years, I would like to explain my position.
Our perestroika signaled the need for change in the Soviet Union, but it was not meant to suggest a capitulation to the U.S. model. Today, the need for a more far-reaching perestroika -- one for America and the world -- has become clearer than ever.
It is true that the need for change in the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s was urgent. The country was stifled by a lack of freedom, and the people -- particularly the educated class -- wanted to break the stranglehold of a system that had been built under Stalin. Millions of people were saying: "We can no longer live like this."
We started with glasnost -- giving people a chance to speak out about their worries without fear. I never agreed with my great countryman Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he said that "Gorbachev's glasnost ruined everything." Without glasnost, no changes would have occurred, and Solzhenitsyn would have ended his days in Vermont rather than in Russia.
At first, we labored under the illusion that revamping the existing system -- changes within the "socialist model" -- would suffice. But the pushback from the Communist Party and the government bureaucracy was too strong. Toward the end of 1986, it became clear to me and my supporters that nothing less than the replacement of the system's building blocks was needed.
We opted for free elections, political pluralism, freedom of religion and an economy with competition and private property. We sought to effect these changes in an evolutionary way and without bloodshed. We made mistakes. Important decisions were made too late, and we were unable to complete our perestroika.
Two conspiracies hijacked the changes -- the attempted coup in August 1991, organized by the hard-line opponents of our reforms, which ended up weakening my position as president, and the subsequent agreement among the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus to dissolve the Union. Russia's leaders then rejected the evolutionary path, plunging the country into chaos.
Nevertheless, when I am asked whether perestroika succeeded or was defeated, I reply: Perestroika won, because it brought the country to a point from which there could be no return to the past.
In the West, the breakup of the Soviet Union was viewed as a total victory that proved that the West did not need to change. Western leaders were convinced that they were at the helm of the right system and of a well-functioning, almost perfect economic model. Scholars opined that history had ended. The "Washington Consensus," the dogma of free markets, deregulation and balanced budgets at any cost, was force-fed to the rest of the world.
But then came the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009, and it became clear that the new Western model was an illusion that benefited chiefly the very rich. Statistics show that the poor and the middle class saw little or no benefit from the economic growth of the past decades.
The current global crisis demonstrates that the leaders of major powers, particularly the United States, had missed the signals that called for a perestroika. The result is a crisis that is not just financial and economic. It is political, too.
The model that emerged during the final decades of the 20th century has turned out to be unsustainable. It was based on a drive for super-profits and hyper-consumption for a few, on unrestrained exploitation of resources and on social and environmental irresponsibility.
But if all the proposed solutions and action now come down to a mere rebranding of the old system, we are bound to see another, perhaps even greater upheaval down the road. The current model does not need adjusting; it needs replacing. I have no ready-made prescriptions. But I am convinced that a new model will emerge, one that will emphasize public needs and public goods, such as a cleaner environment, well-functioning infrastructure and public transportation, sound education and health systems and affordable housing.
Elements of such a model already exist in some countries. Having rejected the tutorials of the International Monetary Fund, countries such as Malaysia and Brazil have achieved impressive rates of economic growth. China and India have pulled hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. By mobilizing state resources, France has built a system of high-speed railways, while Canada provides free health care. Among the new democracies, Slovenia and Slovakia have been able to mitigate the social consequences of market reforms.
The time has come for "creative construction," for striking the right balance between the government and the market, for integrating social and environmental factors and demilitarizing the economy.
Washington will have to play a special role in this new perestroika, not just because the United States wields great economic, political and military power in today's global world, but because America was the main architect, and America's elite the main beneficiary, of the current world economic model. That model is now cracking and will, sooner or later, be replaced. That will be a complex and painful process for everyone, including the United States.
However different the problems that the Soviet Union confronted during our perestroika and the challenges now facing the United States, the need for new thinking makes these two eras similar. In our time, we faced up to the main tasks of putting an end to the division of the world, winding down the nuclear arms race and defusing conflicts. We will cope with the new global challenges as well, but only if everyone understands the need for real, cardinal change -- for a global perestroika.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, heads the International Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies, a Moscow-based think tank.
In his article Gorbachev
1. highlights how nations can improve themselves when they tell the IMF to F off
2. attacks the current economic structure that greatly benefits a few at the top at the expense of the rest of the people
3. calls for "a cleaner environment, well-functioning infrastructure and public transportation, sound education and health systems and affordable housing."
It is a very positive article and many would agree with it, and I hope many put his words into action.
However, the last time Gorbachev called for Perestroika there were a series of coups and Russia ended up being economically raped for a decade by the Rothschild crew.
I am not claiming that Gorbachev knew the eventual outcome of his reforms, but we must all be very wary that good intentions can be, and often are, hijacked for bad intentions.
Therefore any such perestroika must be taken very, very, very carefully.
=============================
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060501966_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
We Had Our Perestroika. It's High Time for Yours.
By Mikhail Gorbachev
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Years ago, as the Cold War was coming to an end, I said to my fellow leaders around the globe: The world is on the cusp of great events, and in the face of new challenges all of us will have to change, you as well as we. For the most part, the reaction was polite but skeptical silence.
In recent years, however, during speaking tours in the United States before university audiences and business groups, I have often told listeners that I feel Americans need their own change -- a perestroika, not like the one in my country, but an American perestroika -- and the reaction has been markedly different. Halls filled with thousands of people have responded with applause.
Over time, my remark has prompted all kinds of comments. Some have reacted with understanding. Others have objected, sometimes sarcastically, suggesting that I want the United States to experience upheaval, just like the former Soviet Union. In my country, particularly caustic reactions have come from the opponents of perestroika, people with short memories and a deficit of conscience. And although most of my critics surely understand that I am not equating the United States with the Soviet Union in its final years, I would like to explain my position.
Our perestroika signaled the need for change in the Soviet Union, but it was not meant to suggest a capitulation to the U.S. model. Today, the need for a more far-reaching perestroika -- one for America and the world -- has become clearer than ever.
It is true that the need for change in the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s was urgent. The country was stifled by a lack of freedom, and the people -- particularly the educated class -- wanted to break the stranglehold of a system that had been built under Stalin. Millions of people were saying: "We can no longer live like this."
We started with glasnost -- giving people a chance to speak out about their worries without fear. I never agreed with my great countryman Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he said that "Gorbachev's glasnost ruined everything." Without glasnost, no changes would have occurred, and Solzhenitsyn would have ended his days in Vermont rather than in Russia.
At first, we labored under the illusion that revamping the existing system -- changes within the "socialist model" -- would suffice. But the pushback from the Communist Party and the government bureaucracy was too strong. Toward the end of 1986, it became clear to me and my supporters that nothing less than the replacement of the system's building blocks was needed.
We opted for free elections, political pluralism, freedom of religion and an economy with competition and private property. We sought to effect these changes in an evolutionary way and without bloodshed. We made mistakes. Important decisions were made too late, and we were unable to complete our perestroika.
Two conspiracies hijacked the changes -- the attempted coup in August 1991, organized by the hard-line opponents of our reforms, which ended up weakening my position as president, and the subsequent agreement among the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus to dissolve the Union. Russia's leaders then rejected the evolutionary path, plunging the country into chaos.
Nevertheless, when I am asked whether perestroika succeeded or was defeated, I reply: Perestroika won, because it brought the country to a point from which there could be no return to the past.
In the West, the breakup of the Soviet Union was viewed as a total victory that proved that the West did not need to change. Western leaders were convinced that they were at the helm of the right system and of a well-functioning, almost perfect economic model. Scholars opined that history had ended. The "Washington Consensus," the dogma of free markets, deregulation and balanced budgets at any cost, was force-fed to the rest of the world.
But then came the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009, and it became clear that the new Western model was an illusion that benefited chiefly the very rich. Statistics show that the poor and the middle class saw little or no benefit from the economic growth of the past decades.
The current global crisis demonstrates that the leaders of major powers, particularly the United States, had missed the signals that called for a perestroika. The result is a crisis that is not just financial and economic. It is political, too.
The model that emerged during the final decades of the 20th century has turned out to be unsustainable. It was based on a drive for super-profits and hyper-consumption for a few, on unrestrained exploitation of resources and on social and environmental irresponsibility.
But if all the proposed solutions and action now come down to a mere rebranding of the old system, we are bound to see another, perhaps even greater upheaval down the road. The current model does not need adjusting; it needs replacing. I have no ready-made prescriptions. But I am convinced that a new model will emerge, one that will emphasize public needs and public goods, such as a cleaner environment, well-functioning infrastructure and public transportation, sound education and health systems and affordable housing.
Elements of such a model already exist in some countries. Having rejected the tutorials of the International Monetary Fund, countries such as Malaysia and Brazil have achieved impressive rates of economic growth. China and India have pulled hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. By mobilizing state resources, France has built a system of high-speed railways, while Canada provides free health care. Among the new democracies, Slovenia and Slovakia have been able to mitigate the social consequences of market reforms.
The time has come for "creative construction," for striking the right balance between the government and the market, for integrating social and environmental factors and demilitarizing the economy.
Washington will have to play a special role in this new perestroika, not just because the United States wields great economic, political and military power in today's global world, but because America was the main architect, and America's elite the main beneficiary, of the current world economic model. That model is now cracking and will, sooner or later, be replaced. That will be a complex and painful process for everyone, including the United States.
However different the problems that the Soviet Union confronted during our perestroika and the challenges now facing the United States, the need for new thinking makes these two eras similar. In our time, we faced up to the main tasks of putting an end to the division of the world, winding down the nuclear arms race and defusing conflicts. We will cope with the new global challenges as well, but only if everyone understands the need for real, cardinal change -- for a global perestroika.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, heads the International Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies, a Moscow-based think tank.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)