TO POWER AND DECAYJune 2005
2 parts - Part 2
Note: To avoid unnecessary repetition
it is important first to read Part
1, from which references are continued in Part 2 in numerical sequence.
Part 1 we wrote of the subversive ideological forces moulding modern society in
accordance with the compliant and submissive patterns required by the Ruling Elite(18).
The extent to which these forces represent a coordinated, coherent conspiracy
of global dimensions, perhaps ultimately destined for some form of future Armageddon,
or the confluence of a vast interactive and complex relationship between concepts,
cultures, ideologies and interests across the world is a matter for individual
study and determination. Hopefully before it is too late as the vast majority
bury their heads in the sands of convenient diversions such as golf handicaps,
commercialised sport, entertainment and the celebrity culture. To every man, woman
and child, their mobile 'phone! As we enter the more esoteric discussion of a
world seemingly in a state of progressive globalisation and concentration of Power,
it is well to remember one of those simple truths taught in one's early schooldays.
This is that the forces of nature are such that even the smallest shoots will
grow through the densest man-made materials. So, we suggest, with human nature
and the insatiable drive this so often embodies. How we contain, constrain, discipline,
control or otherwise live with these forces must ultimately determine the destiny
of the world.
DISILLUSION, DISARRAY AND
Mixed Messages And Convoluted
We quote John Gray, writing in
the New Statesman after the General Election of 5th May, 2005, in which
the "New" Labour Party was returned for the third time with a reduced,
but still sizeable majority:
The people and
the political class are at one: neither wants to face the future. Declining world
oil production, the huge private debts of Britons and Americans, the lack of an
exit strategy in Iraq, and irreversible global warming: these are the big challenges
for the next four years. For all of them, Britain will be gloriously unprepared.
Sadly, neither the "New" Labour
Party, nor the Conservative Party conveyed genuine political conviction; the leadership
of neither party identified with personal authority, unity of purpose and integrity.
There remains absolutely no evidence of honest, charismatic leadership, or contender
for leadership, with the essential strength of character and strategic vision.
The garrulous, superficially plausible Tony Blair is a proven liar. But the reality
is that (so far, in Iraq) the winning side determines the guilty and the measure
of that guilt; otherwise Blair would now be on trial as a war criminal. No political
party has any credible or sustainable economic concept because all are ultimately
beholden to the prevailing debt-usury system of money creation, the City of London
and the international monetary and economic system, the essence of which is continual
debt-driven expansion - Growth - and thus global exploitation. For this reason
it is also patently obvious that the traditional alignments of both major parties
have become obsolete. This has cut the ground from under the Conservative Party
in particular because former Tory-Capitalist interests no longer have a credible
National rationale. There are those individual politicians, too, who have been
prepared to metamorphose these principles, globalise their interests, and so their
The economy is in incipient
collapse, public services, health care, law and order, education, immigration,
public order and social morality are variously in disarray on a battleground of
economic, organisational, managerial realism, social science, vested commercial
and financial interests, and the impossible ideals of revolutionary ideologues.
Internecine conflict infuses a New Labour Party faced with a global and, therefore,
a national economy poised to disintegrate. The people are being increasingly encircled
by bureaucratic and ideological oppression internally, and by slavish adherence
to diktats from the United Nations and the European Union. New Labour has continued
to fudge, renege and lie. The internally divided Conservative Party has been enmeshed
in its duplicitous commitment to the invasion of Iraq and the Europe Union. Instead
of any obvious fundamental analysis and formulation of a coherent philosophy or
strategy, the Conservative party has thus continued speculatively and superficially
to embrace a succession of opportune short term issues devoid of any genuine conviction.
This we pointed out many months ago.
By The Will Of The People Or Will Of A Ruling Elite?
of the most difficult concepts with which to come to terms has been that of a
continuity of the Ideological Struggle or World Revolution in the West in the
post Cold War era. What we have to ask is what form does our supposedly democratic
freedom actually take, and what say do we actually have in determining our own
future when the chips are down? Are we, or the politicians and governments we
elect truly in control of our destiny? Broadly, the Tory ideal is what is good
for the Tories; the Socialist ideal is what the Socialists believe is good for
us, the electorate in the context of the Power they wish to accrue to themselves
to enforce their ideologies on the rest of society. Our oft-repeated observation
is that the essential philosophical divide is that between the National identity
and International, Fabian, Socialism. We must never lose sight of this. In 1945,
Professor Harold Laski, of the London School of Economics and Political Science
(L.S.E.), Chairman of the British Socialist Party Executive, addressed a Swedish
Socialist meeting with the words:
the Foreign Ministers in the Socialist Swedish and British Governments - and soon
in the Norwegian and Danish - meet and draw up a programme together. So also should
the Ministers of Finance and Social Affairs. Our Socialism is one and indivisible.
It is not enough to recite Marxism. We must apply it. All the countries of the
world are interdependent. ("Second-rate Britain", Daily Express,
30th August, 1945)
A most important and
definitive reference is Rose L. Martin's Fabian Freeway(19). Although published
almost 40 years ago, in 1966, she lists numerous household names from both sides
of the Atlantic, and organisations with transatlantic connections or counterparts
such as the American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.) and the Rockefeller-funded
L.S.E. (the second part of the title of which is invariably conveniently omitted).
Laski himself straddled the Atlantic with appointments at McGill, Harvard and
Yale Universities. One immediate contradiction in terms was the Labour Member
of Parliament and Government Minister Denis (now Lord) Healey who was, paradoxically,
a founder member of the Bilderberg Group of the Global Elite in 1954. Another
example was the late Lord Roll of Ipsden, likewise a Bilderberger, Chairman of
bankers S.G. Warburg, a director of the Bank of England and Times Newspapers,
and a close associate of Fabian Socialist Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Like Laski,
Lord Roll had a foot in both camps as a Special Rockefeller Foundation Fellow
and holder of a number of British Government appointments in the United States.
revealing statement made by Professor Laski during his address in Sweden in 1945
We must control monopolies and
cartels. We cannot trust the chaotic mind of the average businessman - industry
is far too serious to be left to him.
If we allow for the Internationalism of Laski's ideals, we suggest that whatever
political system prevails there have to be ruled and rulers. In the half-century
since Laski's pronouncement we have travelled the painful loop in the United Kingdom
from state ownership and control back to private ownership. We also have the potentially
unstable compromises of the Private Finance Initiative (P.F.I.) and the Public-Private
Partnership (P.P.P.); unstable because they are simply another manifestation of
the fundamental truth of the current debt-usury system of money creation - that
overall accumulated debt creation runs ahead of income, whether individual, government
or corporate. In the United Kingdom these operations are already threatening to
unravel. The same was known a quarter of a century ago in the United States, when
the government was seduced into the joint financing of Penn Central and Lockheed
with the result that the ultimate commercial debt could rebound only on the taxpayer
when the Government had to foot the bill. ("Rise of the capitalist's socialism
in the U.S.", The Times, 12th November, 1971). In the United States
the Bush Administrations, father and son, have fronted openly for big business.
In the United Kingdom we have had the fatuously idealistic Fabian "Third
Way", in which the people - government - and big business theoretically work
in collaboration (We have studied the Fabian pamphlet in question). This is another
illusion, that any national government can meaningfully control trans-national
business; a concept over which the electorate is being betrayed every day. We
have made this clear in the case of Biotechnology, and Genetically Modified (G.M.)
crops in agriculture and the food chain. Despite widespread public opposition
to G.M., the Government made determined attempts to "get into bed" with
the Monsanto Corporation, whose tentacles already extend into the Third and Developing
Worlds, and the European Union. Jose MacDonald, B.Sc., co-founder of Farming and
Livestock Concern (U.K.), arranged to have evidence of the dangers of G.M. placed
personally into the hands of Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, and her Agriculture Minister, Elliot Morley. When the
European Commission attempted to overturn a ruling that allowed individual member
countries to ban G.M., at a session of the Council of Ministers, Morley voted
for the Commission. This letter, to The Guardian of 28th June, 2005, indicates
just how meaningless to those in Power are "Democracy" and the interests
of the people who elect them to office to represent those interests:
again the majority view of the British people has been correctly represented by
other European governments, and not by our own. As in the case of Iraq, the British
Government supported the United States in its desire to impose G.M. crops on the
world. ("E.U. votes to continue ban on G.M. crops", 25th June, 2005).
One day maybe we too will have a government which does not bow to United States
In the real
and demanding world of organisation and management, and long term strategic vision,
Laski's concept of state control has spawned a regime of ideologically motivated
incompetents, from union functionaries and school teachers to barristers, none
of whom seem to have managed an organisation of any consequence in their lives.
The acerbic, liberally minded Janet Street Porter, Editor-at-Large of The Independent
on Sunday, was moved to write that Government Ministers Margaret Beckett and
Margaret Hodge might usefully find employment in a Tesco store, preferably not
in a check-out, but in the less demanding task of shelf stacking ("A job
at Tesco awaits you, Margaret (and Margaret)", 19th June, 2005). Since 1997
successive governments of Prime Minister Blair have been strongly reminiscent
of the privileged Soviet Nomenklatura and the reality that one ruling elite will
simply replace another, likewise committed to self-aggrandisement, self-enrichment
and patronage. Far from the squeaky-clean image promoted after the general Election
of May, 1997, the catalogue of "Tony's Cronys" has been manifest. One
of the latest came in a report in the Daily Mail of 16th May, 2005, headed
"Offshore tax haven for Lord Crony". This referred to the newly ennobled
Lord Grayson, now a Defence Minister with no evident experience of Defence. He
had, however, donated £100,000 to the Labour Party, and had collected a
£32,000,000 Health Service contract for his company. The same piece revealed
that Blair adviser, Lord Birt, was connected with a £34,000,000 Defence
contract. The academic career of Blair's son, Euan, and his appointment as a researcher
at the United States House of Representatives had all the resonance of the scions
of the privileged elite at the Soviet Komsomol. No less so, patronage in the appointment
of Chelsea, daughter of former United States President Bill Clinton, to a consultancy
job with the Health Service. ("Labour's favourite consultants employing Chelsea
Clinton on £10m N.H.S. contract - Jobs for the boys (and an ex-President's
daughter) in quango controversy", Mail on Sunday, 29th May, 2005).
The plot thickens in the murk of public perceptions
as we pursue the apparently seamless, teflon coated transition and absorption
of certain politicians such as Peter Mandelson, and supposedly mutually hostile
functionaries of government, into the exclusive world of the Ruling Elite and
their mattoid functionaries. The impetus behind the I.R.A., whatever the broader
objectives of the majority of its members, has incorporated the Marxist-Leninist
Ideological Struggle; for the mind, as well as the employment of terrorism in
the military sense (the Armed Struggle). This has never been properly understood
by the authorities in the United Kingdom and has allowed Gerry Adams and his I.R.A.
colleagues to run rings round both the British and Irish Governments. Nevertheless
one asks what influences led to Metropolitan Police Commander, George Churchill-Coleman,
a senior Freemason, to withhold evidence of collaboration between the I.R.A. and
the African National Congress (A.N.C.), from Conservative Member of Parliament,
Andrew Hunter, or why Special Branch and M.I.6 made determined attempts to prevent
Hunter's investigations? The smooth progress of the oleaginous Peter Hain, in
his youth a fervent anti-Apartheid campaigner, has been almost as uncanny as that
other instant expert in a succession of departments, Ruth Kelly. From becoming
a New Labour M.P. in 1991, Hain had already held appointments in the Welsh Office,
as a Foreign Office Minister and Secretary of State for Wales, before becoming
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. On 3rd July, 2005, The Sunday Telegraph
reported Hain as praising the Marxist I.R.A. leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness
as "courageous" and "visionary". Both men, as Marxists, have
waged the Armed and Ideological Struggles from within the I.R.A. and have the
blood of more than 3,000 dead and countless more injured and maimed in Ireland
and on the British mainland. Throughout the period of Hain's earlier campaigning
the A.N.C., like the I.R.A., was Marxist dominated and was also sustained by the
Soviet Union. It was also known that the I.R.A. consorted with the A.N.C. at the
latter's office in 28 Penton Street, in North London. We may take these convolutions
in the corridors of Power a little further. Twice discredited former Cabinet Minister
Peter Mandelson, another Bilderberg attendee, is now European Union Trade Commissioner.
He is also on record as visiting Albania on behalf of Lord Nathan Rothschild(20).
Lord Rothschild's cousin Sir Evelyn, of N.M. Rothschild, and yet another Bilderberger,
is also professed to be a friend of Mandelson with whom he is said to share a
common interest in Albania, and whose "Policy Network" "think tank"
he finances. (The Sunday Times, 22nd September, 2002). Carla, the Italian
wife of Lord Charles Powell of Bayswater, is on record as another friend of Mandelson.
Powell, a former Private Secretary to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has been
listed as a director of J. Rothschild, the National Westminister Bank and Jardine
Matheson amongst other directorships. His younger brother, Jonathan, is Chief
of Staff to Prime Minister Blair. One might equally ask, en passant, how
former United Nations Representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock, closely associated
with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and to B.P. Amoco, has come to be Director
of the Ditchley Foundation? Or how the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General
Lord Guthrie, comes to be on the board of N.M. Rothschild and a member of the
secretive extra-governmental Rockefeller-Brzezinski-Kissinger Trilateral Commission?
Class War, And The Continuum Of The Revolutionary
If the post Cold War era renders
it difficult to visualise the concept of an on-going World Revolution with its
roots in France, in 1789, and later inspired by Marx and Lenin, it is perhaps
even more difficult to accept a continuum of the Ideological Struggle into the
Third Millennium as a part of such a Revolution; a Revolution that we are led
to believe died with the collapse of Communism in Soviet Russia in the 1990s.
When the armed might of the Warsaw pact still posed a serious threat to the West
it was easy for the former diplomat, banker and M.I.6 officer George K. Young,
to expose the subversive Communist threat to our security(21). Many of those Young
named have since graduated from student insurrection and revolutionary political
movements to important positions in public life. Have their early views matured
and mellowed? Have their mentalities and convictions altered as the insidious
process of Political Correctness, with its roots in Marxism-Leninism, is being
allowed by successive governments to sieve inexorably into the fabric of contemporary
society? For the serious analyst it has been possible to understand how the bourgeoisie
and their interests, the broad band of the thinking Middle Classes posed a potential
threat to the ultimate objective of a confluence between Communism and the forces
of Global Capitalism; in other words, towards the Centralisation of Power. "Middle
Class" is in any case a pliable term and conveniently difficult to define,
but it constitutes a ready ideological target. This tends to explain why it was
possible for George K. Young to publish a perfectly legitimate exposure twenty
years ago and yet be marginalised politically as "far" or "extreme"
Right today. What has changed? What began as a post-war Working Class movement
against social position, privilege, wealth and "class" in general drew
much of its momentum from pre-war poverty, unemployment and the visible aspirations
of the petit bourgeoisie. In the closing months of the 1939-45 War an incipient
challenge to the ethos of military authority axiomatic to such an environment
on the part of demobilising servicemen, was whipped up by the politically motivated
Army Bureau of Current Affairs and a stream of Left Wing books from the publisher
Victor Gollancz. Perceptions of "authoritarian subjection" to a social
elite continued to rankle through the period of National Service conscription
until the 1960s. Behind the facade of evolving social change and the increasing
influence of individual and corporate materialism, the deliberate gradual erosion;
the dumbing down and dismantling of our hereditary freedoms, as well as essential
social disciplines, has continued. The signs of this pervasive ideological virus
are there if we care to look for them.
Only three weeks after the General Election of May, 2005, the Trades Union Congress
set the scene with the issue of Diversity in Action, which advised on the use
of harmless everyday terms such as race, marriage and language. The General Secretary
of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education condemned
the elitism of the Labour Party's own Ministers; no doubt a side-swipe at Ruth
Kelly, the new Secretary of State for Education. ("'Posh' ministers get black
mark from teachers", The Observer, 29th May, 2005). Ruth Kelly's predecessor
in Education, Estelle Morris is already on record as commenting on the "snobs"
who pursue higher examination standards; perhaps a petulant reflection of "class"
resentment at her own inadequacies in an appointment from which she had been forced
to resign(22). We have already identified the Marxist-Leninist philosophy that
truth is that which advances the interests of the Party of the Revolution. In
this context we have shown how Education Minister David Milibrand and Denis MacShane,
Minster for Europe, both lied as Ministers in accordance with this philosophy(23).
Using his office as Home Secretary prior to the General Election in May, 2005,
Charles Clarke apparently had no scruples about addressing mosques in a manouevre
to exploit differences over Race Hate legislation with the Conservative and Liberal
Democrat parties. His letter was addressed from "the Office of Charles Clarke,
16 Old Queen Street, London", and bore the New Labour slogan and logo. He
was also reported on 22nd May, 2005, as lying on six specific counts of law and
order. ("Six falsehoods in 100 seconds: how the Home Secretary misled the
public over 'yob crack-down'", The Sunday Telegraph). On 7th July,
2005, a Daily Telegraph report was headed; "M.Ps., make merry as bumbling
deputy [John Prescott] takes up the reins". The newspaper and B.B.C Radio
4 referred to Prescott's allusion to the "class" of his Conservative
adversary, Michael Ancram, who happens to be the 13th Marquess of Lothian. Whilst
suggestions were that Prescott would have relished an old fashioned Left-Right
battle, had Ancram alluded to Prescott's "Lower" or "Working"
Class origins in the same way the talking heads of the Media would have been grabbing
for their computers.
Each time these
incidents could be dismissed as passing aberrations or individual prejudice. The
sum of the parts, however, paints a different picture; one of a poisonous and
deliberately divisive social virus. A frenzy of media criticism occurred when
Prince Harry dared to adopt Nazi uniform for a fancy dress party. "This ignorant
prince proves the idiocy of the hereditary principle", prated Deborah Orr
in The Independent of 15th January, 2005. The actions of the youthful Prince
did no such thing despite Orr's superficial and facile arguments. Indeed, one
might well ask who is Deborah Orr that she presumes to shape the opinions of the
rest of us. This process of attrition runs deep in the social, mental and journalistic
blood-stream and applies to general carping selectively against the Constitutional
Monarchy. Prince Andrew has been castigated for using a helicopter to fly to golf
matches, yet we do not recall mention of the need for security or that this might
have some relationship to a programme of formal commitments. The Daily Telegraph,
which castigated Prince Charles and his entourage for not using scheduled air
services during a visit to sites of the Tsunami flood disaster, impresses less
and less as a loyalist, conservative or establishment newspaper. ("Charles
and a charter to spend money - cost of royal travel back in the spotlight as prince
and his entourage spurn scheduled flights and run up a £379,929 bill on
a 13-day round-the-world tour", 23rd June, 2005). What the newspaper did
not reflect was the standing, the prestige and importance of the British Monarchy
in the eyes of the world; nor did it make reference to the use of air transport
by the presidentially ambitious Prime Minister Blair and his entourage, whose
journeys involve escaping domestic issues on some well-spun "initiative"
elsewhere. This approach also conveniently ignores comparison with numerous tycoons
and sporting celebrities, such as the golfer Greg Norman, who regularly fly in
their own private executive jets and by private helicopter. No comparison is made
between the Royal residences and numerous privately-owned residences at home and
abroad, off-shore tax havens and luxury yachts. Philip Green, domiciled in Monaco,
is the British Home Stores (B.H.S.) magnate and not untypical of those who, like
"celebrities", make a handsome living out of the British public. Green's
wife gave him an executive jet aircraft as a birthday present, and he is said
to have spent £2,000,000 on his son's Bar Mitzvah celebrations. The Telegraph
might no less have suggested that the Queen take a bus down the Mall on state
occasions. This is the same newspaper that devotes entire pages to the ludicrously
extravagant lifestyle of a self-generating world of celebrities; grossly overpaid
sports stars, the fashion world, show business, their media afficionados and an
army of hangers-on, freeloading politicians and so on.
If the sum of the parts constitutes a compelling scenario of subversion within
Western society, we may quote the Financial Times of 28th June, 2005, in
writing of a "culture war" in which the United States Supreme Court
has ruled against the display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky court. This
falls into line with the general, singular attack on Christianity in the West
through the Mass Communications Media, entertainment and the cinema. It echoes
attempts to ban Bibles from hospitals and the removal of the Cross from a crematorium
chapel in the United Kingdom. A more relaxed and liberal society is one thing.
We also have many commercial pressures within the publishing and fashion industries.
Manners, respect for others and legitimate authority - another potential area
for dispute - do not change significantly in principle, but these natural and
essential disciplines have been gradually loosened by permissive legislation and
the promotion of individual "Rights". In Part 1 we discussed simple
questions of dress and style that are open to any one(24). A very visual example
can be found in English test match cricket over a span of some 20 or 30 years.
Originally, it was the custom to appear in public attired in blazers and white
flannels; the authority of the umpires during match play was generally respected.
During the intervening period the truculence and rudeness sometimes amounting
to intimidation has been increasingly prevalent on the field exactly as authority
is repeatedly challenged in society generally. This was reflected in a photograph
of latter-day English players watching from the balcony, dressed in a hotch-potch
of coloured shorts, tee-shirts, baseball caps, feet on the rail, drinking from
cans. It is also a very subliminal process that finds a ready audience.
may question where this is leading in what may be justified by many as a naturally
evolving and less deferential society; nothing sinister in exercising one's normal
Human "Rights". We have already cited the loud-mouthed slob culture
of television motoring presenters(25). Now witness the poison pill in a review
of the new Ford Focus motor car in The Guardian of 21st June, 2005, to
which we have added our own emphasis. The car was first billed as "elitist",
meaningless in terms of the car, but it established the term "Elitist"
in the mind of the reader. The text, which bore scant resemblance to a professional
assessment of a motor vehicle, included the totally pointless statement that "The
steering wheel had mock aluminium spokes - elitist, quietly racy and above all,
screamingly Essex". Estelle Morris and the General Secretary of the National
Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education would have noted satisfying
echoes here. Not much to get excited about? Radios and loudspeakers hang on the
walls of workshops, cafés and offices around the country and blare mindlessly,
to provide a continuous background of noise and chatter. No less subliminal than
The Guardian was a B.B.C. Radio popular music programme that blared away
in a barber's shop as we listened. During his transmission the slob culture presenter
made repeated allusions to the "Middle Classes" for no obvious reason
connected with the programme. It is therefore easy to understand how the mind
control process functions, and how the ideology becomes embedded in the mentality,
the psyche, of third rate journalists and broadcasters.
The sum of the parts? Maintenance of Law and Order is a vital function in modern
society. Policing sprang from the Militia of the early Nineteenth Century. The
Police wear similar badges of rank to the Armed Forces but, relatively recently,
abandoned the too authoritarian custom of saluting. Chief Constables are important
figures comparable to their counterparts in the Armed Forces, but career selection
and patterns changed more sharply under the general pressure for social change
in society. Perusing our press cuttings we see the general loosening of standards
and the erosion of morale within the ranks precipitated by active imposition of
the mores of (Marxist-Leninist, let us remember), Political Correctness. The regular
use of Christian names has been exploited in pursuit of a more relaxed and approachable
society regardless of the fundamental rule of human behaviour, that familiarity
breeds contempt. We have now gone one further with Chief Constables whose names
have been popularised and cheapened with abbreviations such as "Matt",
"Steve", "Tony", "Mick" and "Tom". The
professional image has been debased by public inarticulacy in too many cases,
account fiddling and, recently, sexual mis-conduct in the case of "Tom"
Lloyd, Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire. A fundamental tenet of sound management,
no less than military command, is that of unqualified support for ones subordinates
and no public display of censure or disharmony. Yet in the United States Air Force
Academy, where a problem of prosletysing Christianity has occurred, itself an
astonishing lapse of "good order and military discipline", the Jewish
Chronicle of 10th June, 2005, was able to report that the Commandant had publicly
revealed that he had admonished his deputy, Brigadier Johnny Weida, as the individual
responsible. Perhaps this goes some small way to explain the appalling conduct
of the American operation in Iraq. If we need confirmation that the Revolutionary
Ideology is alive and well, even if we find it difficult to identify it as such
in the West, we have the example of Zimbabwe. Marxist President Robert Mugabe's
brutal land clearance, firstly of White farmers, and now of Black Zimbabwean political
opponents to his regime - Black "Kulaks" - savours of that which occurred
in Soviet Russia in the 1930s. That Mugabe is now inviting dispossessed White
farmers to return to sort out the agricultural chaos has another parallel in the
reinstatement of surviving Czarist officers to operate the Russian Armed Forces
following the Bolshevik uprising of October, 1917, with its indiscriminate torture
and slaughter of the Bourgeoisie. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa resolutely
refuses to censure Mugabe. Mbeki is also a Marxist.
THE FARCE AND FALLACY OF DEMOCRACY
So You Think You Count
Once we put a cross
on a ballot paper we may as well forget it. In the United Kingdom and the United
States one has the option of choosing one of two monolithic parties with precious
little difference between them, both beholden to vested interests, in particular
to International Finance-Capitalism. In the United Kingdom a third, Liberal Democrat
Party, snaps hopefully at the heels of the other two. Very small inroads have
been made by the U.K. Independence Party (U.K.I.P.), the one political group unequivocally
opposed to an European Union "superstate". Prior to the General Election
of May, 2005, matters of serious public concern such as immigration, asylum, Political
Correctness, bureaucratic oppression in general, especially that emanating from
Brussels, continuing violence against ordinary citizens, adolescent and juvenile
behaviour, were picked up briefly during the party-political manoeuvring and discarded.
Politicians generally will process high profile constituency issues useful to
their electoral image, but challenge a Member of Parliament on a fundamental question
such as substituting the right of a government to create its own debt-free money
to finance public services, such as Health Care, for the conventional debt-usury
system of money creation by the private banking system, and see what happens.
We know, we have tried. All these issues emanate from legislation through Parliament
by our elected representatives. It is possible to amend, overhaul, review or even
withdraw legislation. It is equally possible to enforce existing legislation such
as that designed to control the incursions of so-called "travellers",
or the disastrous Children Act of 1989 that has caused major problems in Education.
In the case of relayed diktats from the United Nations or Brussels, a simple answer
on important questions such as the legal system: "We hear you, but in the
case of this country the answer is 'No'", could have brought a landslide
the former M.P. for Ludlow, is a man who leads from the front as the popular Chairman
of the resurgent Freedom Association(26). He was also one of the pathetically
small band of Conservative Party M.Ps. who had the conviction and integrity to
stand up to Prime Minister John Major and the repressive Party Whips to oppose
the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. His Chairman's Letter in the May-June
issue of the Association's magazine, Freedom Today, Christopher Gill began:
"What a load of shysters, but by such we are governed!" He was referring
to the pre-election promise of Prime Minister Tony Blair to hold a referendum
on the European Constitution regardless of the outcome of the vote in France,
which was in the event an overwhelming "No". Thanks to the duplicity
of the New Labour and Conservative Party leaderships, inter alia, revealing
the International Socialist creed of the former, no referendum has been held,
and the British people have been tactically denied the promise to express their
views. We have written extensively on the machinations of Prime Minister Edward
Heath to manipulate the United Kingdom into a political as well as an economic
union(27). We have written on the danger of the European Arrest Warrant(28), and
on the threat to our Constitution(29). Outside parliamentary circles and special
interest groups, what has been explained for public consumption about the greatest
change to this country since the Norman invasion in 1066 or the Magna Carta of
1215; what officially sponsored radio or television series, what local government
briefings or releases to the regional press? Information - promotional - packs
have been circulated for schools, but what does any-body, even those politicians
poised to vote away our heritage know, for example, of the address by Professor
Arnold Toynbee of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in 1931?(30) here
is the key extract:
In the spirit of determination
which happily animates us, we shall have no inclination to underestimate the strength
of the political force which we are striving to overcome. If we are frank with
ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and
concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and the independence
of the fifty or sixty local independent states which at present partition the
habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind.
The surest sign, to my mind, that this fetish of local national sovereignty is
our intended victim is the emphasis which all our statesmen and publicists protest
with one accord, and over and over again, at every step forward which we take,
that, whatever changes we may make in the international situation, the sacred
principle of local sovereignty will remain inviolable. . . . The harder we press
our attack upon the idol, the more pains we take to keep its priests and devotees
in a fool's paradise - lapped in a false sense of security which will inhibit
them from taking up arms in their idol's defence.
States Intelligence, leading American political figures and the Foundations were
involved in early post-war manoeuvres for a United Europe. The globalising process
- the Centralisation of Power - included the requirement to dismantle Commonwealth
trade agreements. Behind this lay a United States drive to penetrate and ultimately
to dominate global markets. As early as 1947 this was perfectly well known to
the Design for Freedom Committee, a panel of 24 leading public figures of whom
10 were M.Ps. The Chairman was Peter Thorneycroft, M.P., later to become a Government
Minister and, as Lord Thorneycroft, Chairman of the Conservative Party. This illuminating
extract from their Paper, Design for Europe, did not exactly reflect the
Moreover - and
it is just as well to state this bluntly at the outset - no government dependent
upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices which
any adequate plan must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously
into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, not asked, in advance
of having received any of the benefits which will accrue to them from the [Marshall]
plan, to make the changes of which they may not at first recognise the advantages
to themselves as well as to the rest of the world.
The Editor of The Scorpion magazine, Michael Walker, devoted an entire
issue to the question of Democracy under the title "Democracy we Presume?"(32).
Here we reproduce his opening paragraph which we have coupled with text taken
from the captions of selected illustrations:
fundamental questions belong to every consideration of democracy - do we have
democracy and do we want it? In the course of this essay, which is an attempt
to help towards an understanding of different approaches to the subject, the two
questions should be kept in mind. If we are unaware of them, discussion about
democracy and everything associated with it is likely to become a polemical tool
in debate in which protagonists speak past one another, because they are arguing
on different premises. . . . Political leaders in democratic regimes play the
role of ventriloquist dummy to lobbies, the media and money. . . . Political parties
campaign for the voters' support with sometimes droll publicity but the agenda
is fixed by parties and the media and the gap between party establishments and
voters in the West is widening.
Walker asks "Do we have democracy and do we want it?". Perhaps we should
invite the reader to provide the answer to the first part. It may help in reaching
that answer to quote what E.H. Carr on the role of Economic Power in 1942(33).
In reaching any conclusion it is also as well to reflect on the "Third Way"
promulgated by the New Labour Party and the case postulated in these pages that
a form of Ideological manipulation, or conditioning, is taking place to reduce
the electorate to a state in which they are incapable of, or indifferent to, any
Democracy may thus in ordinary
parlance imply either the acceptance of certain ideals which are regarded as ends
in themselves not requiring justification, or the establishment of a certain type
of government machinery (ie., representative government as being the nearest practicable
modern equivalent to self-government), which is not an end in itself, but is justified
as the most effective means of attaining democratic ideals. . . . [of Liberal
Democracy] [T]he holders of economic power, instead of agreeing - as the theory
of liberal democracy required - that the state should merely hold the ring while
they competed against each other with economic weapons, now more and more openly
descended into the political arena and used political weapons to secure economic
benefits for themselves, thus making organised economic power for the first time
the dominant factor in politics.
What We Are Told And The way We Think
We have democracy in that we are able to fill in a slip of paper every four or
five years. We may live peacefully with our golf handicaps, television entertainment
and sanitized news and current affairs transmissions. We suffer no obvious form
of tyranny, although it was possible for some 20 Marconi scientists and government
scientist Dr David Kelly to vanish somewhat inexplicably from the scene. Any challenge
to our independence of thought or deed comes from a process of legislative and
social change. We postulate this as the Ideological Struggle - akin to psychological
warfare - to control the mind. This is far more subtle than outright physical
oppression and is therefore far more difficult to identify. The Labour Movement
that began in the late Nineteenth Century and lasted until well into the following
century brought greater prosperity and social justice to the mass of the people;
the Working or employed Classes. One might suggest we have reached a condition
of relative material equilibrium. Concurrently with these changes we have had
the progressive Centralisation of Power in the form of International Finance Capitalism;
that of banking and the multinational corporations, and those governments that
we elect to represent our interests, but that in practice serve theirs. The thinking,
socially responsible element of society, centred on the so-called educated, intellectual
and professional property-owning Middle Classes, but drawn from perceptive individuals
at all levels of the community, is a threat to this Centralisation of Power. They
can recognise it, understand it and organise to challenge it. They cannot easily
be liquidated as in France in 1789, or Russia, in 1917. We may enact legislation
to reduce their material security and thus independence, and to restrict their
independence of thought and expression. We may erode the heritage and culture
that are the bedrock of their existence. Or we may control the flow and form of
information available to them.
ago, in 1992, we published two consecutive editions of On Target in which we examined
the Mass Communications Media(34)(35). In 1993 and 1994 we followed this with
two further editions on the Power of the Media and those who control it. The first
dealt with Diversion - "Diversiya" - and the active use and control
of Propaganda and the Media under Soviet Communism(36). The second examined the
way in which the Ruling Elite achieved much the same ends by more "democratic"
methods(37). Writing in 1976, Thomas R. Dye left no doubt that the Media were
almost totally under control of vested interests in the United States(38). He
quoted Nicholas Johnson, a member of the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.),
The networks, in particular
. . . are probably now beyond the check of any institution in our society. The
President, the Congress of the United States, the F.C.C., the foundations, the
universities are reluctant even to get involved. I think they may now be so powerful
that they're beyond the check of anyone.
more sources convey the same message. In Chronicles of Dissent Professor
Noam Chomsky shows how public perceptions are generated and almost completely
controlled(39). Edward Abboud wrote pungently in 2001 from an Islamic point of
view how American-Jewish and Zionist interests controlled the Media to their own
ends(40). Abboud is best read in conjunction with the American-Jewish author J.J.Goldberg's
reasoned and analytical assessment of what remains a clear source of control in
this field(41). In the end the situation is one of what we are allowed to know
and what we are conditioned to think.
we gave details of the vast network of vested interests and individuals, the path
from which led to ownership and control of the Media. Royal Commissions of 1947-49
and 1961-62 had expressed no concerns except for limited newspaper amalgamations
and dual newspaper and television interests. This period that followed for the
United Kingdom was one of rapidly growing Power of the media moguls; Robert Maxwell,
Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black. In 1989 the House of Commons expressed itself
"united in opposition to media empires". In the same year the then Home
secretary, Douglas Hurd, referring for some reason only to broadcasting, stated
that "Broadcasting will not be ruled by tycoons". By 1994 and the Government
of John Major, all semblance of formal regulation over Media ownership was thrown
to the winds and we were reading headlines such as "TV review paves the way
for mergers" (The Daily Telegraph, 4th January, 1994), "Proprietors
at the gate - Newspaper groups hammer at the door of television as government
launches review of media ownership rules", (The Sunday Times, 9th
January, 1994) and "ITV free-for-all starts bidding battle of giants",
(The Daily Telegraph, 25th January, 1994). From the earliest beginnings
we had gone from the simple provision of news, the domestic influence in the media
such as that of Lord Rothermere, Lord Beaverbrook and the Astor family in the
1920s, 1930s and 1940s, to a state in which public opinion could be shaped by
foreign media tycoons on a grand scale. This was, inter alia, an early
indication of the fallacy of the Fabian Socialist "Third Way".
Writing under the title "The Ghost Of Gleneagles"
in the New Statesman for 11th July, 2005, John Pilger offers one single
and compelling example of how the powers-that-be control our perspectives through
the information chain. This is especially relevant at the time of the G8 Conference
of Finance Ministers at Gleneagles, in Scotland. It is also relevant, since this
is the time at which we are writing, to the tragic consequences and implications
of the series of explosions that rocked the City of London on Thursday, 7th July,
2005. Here is an extract from the article in question, to which we have added
the necessary emphasis:
Over the past
two weeks, the contrast between two related "global" events has been
salutary. The first was the World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul; the second
the G8 meeting in Scotland and the Make Poverty History campaign. Reading the
papers and watching television in Britain, you would know nothing about the Istanbul
meetings, which produced the most searing evidence to date of the greatest political
scandal of modern times; the attack on a defenceless Iraq by Britain and America.
The Tribunal is a serious international public inquiry into the invasion and occupation,
the kind governments dare not hold. "We are here", said the author Arundhati
Roy in Istanbul, "to examine a vast spectrum of evidence [about the war]
that has been deliberately marginalised and suppressed - its legality, the role
of international institutions and major corporations in the occupation; the role
of the media, the impact of weapons such as depleted uranium munitions, napalm
and cluster bombs, the use and legitimation of torture . . . The most shocking
[testimony] was given by Dahr Jamail. Unless you read the Internet, you will not
know who Dahr Jamail is. He is not an amusing Baghdad blogger. For me he is the
finest reporter working in Iraq. Together with Robert Fisk [The Independent],
Patrick Cockburn [London Review of Books and The Independent] and a few others,
mostly freeelancers, he shames the flak-jacketed, cliché-crunching camp
followers known as Embeds". . . . He has reported from the besieged city
of Fallujah, whose destruction and atrocities have been suppressed, notably by
the B.B.C. (See www.medialens.org/alerts). . . . Jamail described how Fallujah's
hospitals have been subjected to an American tactic of collective punishment,
with United States marines assaulting staff and stopping the wounded entering,
and American snipers firing at the doors and windows, and medicines and emergency
blood prevented from reaching the hospitals. Children were shot in front of their
families, in cold blood. The two men ultimately responsible for this, George W.
Bush and Tony Blair, attended the G8 meeting at Geneagles. Unlike for the Istanbul
Tribunal, there was saturation coverage, yet no one in the "mainstream"
- from the embedded media to the Make Poverty History organisers and the accredited,
acceptable celebrities - made the obvious connection with Bush's and Blair's enduring
crime in Iraq. . . . In Edinburgh, a shameless invitation-only meeting of Christian
Aid supporters and church leaders was addressed by Gordon Brown, a paymaster of
this carnage. Only one person asked him, "When will you stop the rape of
the poor's resources? Why are there so many conditions on aid?" This lone
protester was not referring specifically to Iraq, but to most of the world. He
was thrown out, to cheers from among the assembled Christians. . . . The mawkish
images on giant screens behind the pop stars in Hyde Park beckoned a wilful, self-satisfied
ignorance. There were none of the images that television refuses to show; of murdered
Iraqi doctors with the blood streaming from their heads, cut down by Bush's snipers.
. . . There was [Sir] Bob Geldof, resting his smiling face on smiling Blair's
shoulder, the war criminal and his jester. . . . The suppression of African singers
and bands, parked where Geldof decreed, in an environmental theme park in Cornwall,
far from the vaunted global audience, was described by Andy Kershaw as "musical
apartheid" Has there ever been censorship as complete and insidious as this?
Even when Stalin airbrushed his purged comrades from the annual photograph on
top of Lenin's mausoleum, the Russian people could fill in the gaps. Media and
cultural hype provide infinitely more powerful weapons in the age of Blair.
THE PATH FROM COLONIALISM TO TERROR
Some Truths Of Democracy And Its Convenient Interpretation
We write in the aftermath of the bombing of 7th July, 2005, in the London Underground
and, perhaps prematurely, an explosion on a London bus. Parliament predictably
closed ranks across the party-political divide, and we must accordingly establish
a clear division between the tragedy of the bereaved, dead and injured - the human
story - and the political and geopolitical backcloth to this atrocity. The British
people, with 2,000 years of tradition and culture behind them, rose resolutely
to the occasion. The Police and supporting services have demonstrated characteristically
British professionalism. Commentators and the "talking heads", few of
them to our knowledge with expertise on the Middle East or the Islamic world generally,
went equally predictably into overdrive and enjoyed a field day with speculative
analyses. In The Sunday Telegraph Niall Ferguson suggested that when they
portray the attack in London, on 7th July, 2005, as retribution for the invasion
of Iraq, George Galloway, M.P., and Robert Fisk, a leading journalist and widely
respected expert on the region, overlook the fact that if we give in to "terrorists"
- which does not follow in any case - Osama bin Laden would control the Middle
East. What Ferguson himself misses is that Osama Bin Laden was a C.I.A. creation
in the first place with murky links with United States agencies right up to 9-11.
Ferguson also conveniently forgets that the United States and the United Kingdom
fabricated the evidence in order to invade Iraq in the first place, and thus themselves
destroyed any semblance of stability. The one truth amidst this nonsense was Ferguson's
admission that "The answer is that the Middle East is too economically and
hence too strategically important to be abandoned - so long as the world's consumption
of fossil fuels continues to grow". Now we have it! Professor Brian Brivati,
of Kingston University, claimed in The Guardian that the "Invasion
had reduced the threat of terror", and opened with the question: "Would
7-7 have happened, and would it have been more or less deadly, if we had not liberated
Afghanistan and Iraq?". (Emphasis added) In making this palpably absurd proposition,
he fails to define "terror" and explain that not only had Iraq not threatened
anyone, possessed none of the Weapons of Mass Destruction alleged by the Coalition
and had had no connection with Osama bin Laden and Al Qa'eda. Nor does he define
the "liberation" of Iraq in terms of the subsequent brutal occupation,
continued destruction of the ancient heritage, and exploitation by United States
multinational corporations, or acknowledge the impotence of the current quasi-puppet
leadership that cowers within the Green Zone in Baghdad. In the title to a leading
article in the Financial Times by Bilderberger Martin Woolf, we read "Enemies
of freedom always underestimate their "adversaries". What "enemies"
and what "freedom", and who, exactly, are the adversaries"? The
freedom destroyed in the first place was that of Iraq following a contrived invasion
based on evidence known to be false, with a continuing catalogue of American atrocities
worthy of any Nazi German occupation during the 1939-45 War. Wolf goes on, after
assuming the complicity of Jihadis, possibly "home grown" Jihadis, that:
"It is a bitter conflict that has at least one thing in common with the Cold
War. It is a battle of ideas. It is a battle between tolerance and religious bigotry".
(Emphasis added). This is duplicitous nonsense characteristic of the sheer hypocrisy
of the Coalition Powers. Despite United States' and the United Kingdom's attempts
to de-couple the bombing in London from the invasion of Iraq, Dilip Hiro, who
clearly does know his Middle Eastern history, pointed out in The Independent
on Sunday that the Anglo-American Coalition had ridden roughshod over the
Islamic culture which has now helped to breed an even more menacing "swamp"
Today, jihadists are drawn
to Iraq not only because Iraq represents an ancient and powerful idea of Arab
culture and history. After all, Baghdad was, almost uninterruptedly, the capital
of the Islamic empire from 750 to 1258. Baghdad also holds the tomb of Abu Hanifa
al-Numan (699-767), the founder of the Hanifi Code of Islamic law, the largest
sub-sect among Sunnis. And the tomb of Ali in Najaf [desecrated during the United
States assault in 2004], is sacred to both Shiias and Sunnis.
Before we distinguish between perceived or ritual political positions and simple
truths, we must first consider the definition of "Terror", "Terrorists"
and "Terrorism", which we examined first in December, 2004, supported
by the appropriate references(42). "Terror", "Terrorist" and
"Terrorism" as terms have been progressively distorted conveniently
to define any group or activity that opposes the actions and interests generally
of the Western Powers. In the present context this applies to the Middle East,
Southern Asia and the Far East. We are not discussing here the anarchist political
groups prevalent in Europe during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, such as the Red
Brigade. We are not contemplating domestic insurrection such as the Basque separatist
movement in Spain. In the Middle East, and on a wider, Islamic front, we are faced
with a situation far closer to resistance groups, like the Maquis, which operated
behind the lines in France, Eastern Europe and the Balkans during the 1939-45
War. The employment of techniques such as assassination, bombing, sabotage and
demolition is to utilise what means are available to those who do not have access
to modern battlefield weapons. Given a just cause, as in the case of Iraq, this
is perfectly legitimate and ultimately less destructive than high level American
bombing - "bunker", cluster bombs and the rest - of innocent, civilians
and the use of helicopter gunships and heavy artillery against civilian populations
during the wanton destruction of ancient towns and cities. As Dilip Hiro has pointed
out, this will inevitably draw in more extreme factions, similarly to the presence
of Communist elements in France and Jugoslavia in 1939-45. The use of "terrorist"
or "insurgent" conveys an unjustified implication for those who simply
want their country back, and are arguably more correctly defined as freedom fighters
or guerrillas. In the case of the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, one might ask
who had planned this several years previously, who fudged the evidence against
Iraq, and who fired the first shot? Who has slaughtered as many as 100,000 Iraqi
civilians, many, including small children and doctors, in cold blood, and tortured
thousands more to give rise to the present insurrection in Madrid, Bali and London?
Who consistently censored this from the controlled Media and so left innocent
civilian populations, in London Madrid and elsewhere, innocent not least of the
scale of the atrocities being committed by governments on their behalf, with a
false sense of security?
Next, we must
disabuse ourselves of the ritual political cachet of "Left" or "Right"
wing attributions and alignments. This tends to be a knee-jerk journalistic and
political instinct of the mental process. For some, whose opinions are culled
from no more than a favourite newspaper and according to perceived social background
and tradition, the presumption that what "we" do is automatically justified
and what the foreign adversary or target does must be wrong, goes with the thinking
and natural demand for loyalty to what is perceived as the national interest.
One has seen this instinctive arrogance in the Conservative Party ranks. One gets
a whiff of the same even within the ranks of the excellent Freedom Association
with its admirable small "c" conservative values. The Financial Times
referred to some 140 Labour Party M.Ps. who were opposed to the invasion and occupation
of Iraq as "Left Wing" and "Left-leaning". What is "Left"
about an illegal invasion based on fraudulent evidence and a ruthlessly oppressive
occupation? Perhaps the editor of the Financial Times would care to define
his terms? In 1984 George Young published a perfectly legitimate exposure of the
Communist threat within the United Kingdom, but in the same pages he referred
to Ramsey Clark, when Attorney General of the United States in 1980, as "odious",
and "notorious" for his mea culpa ("I am guilty"),
in Teheran, thus bracketing Clark with the dangerous Liberal or subversive Left
Wing ethos(43). Clark had bucked the orthodoxy of the Ruling Global Elite when
he had negotiated the release of United States Embassy hostages seized by the
revolutionary leadership that had ousted the Shah of Iran in the previous year,
and in doing so had acknowledged American interference in the internal affairs
of Iran. But this so-called interference was already a matter of record; in the
early years through Louis Fischer(44) and Anton Mohr(45), while Timmerman has
described in detail how we armed Saddam Hussein(46). In The Fire This Time
Ramsey Clark gave a full account of how Great Britain, France and later the United
States had continuously and unscrupulously manipulated the rulers of Arab nations
whose boundaries had been arbitrarily defined after the fall of the Ottoman Empire
after the 1914-18 War; nations that had had little experience of self-government
and had long existed under various forms of mandate and protectorate. Moreover,
Clark also gave a comprehensive account of American atrocities during the first
Gulf War of 1991, including the deliberate bombing of innocent citizens in Fallujah,
the shooting in cold blood of troops attempting to surrender and the murderous
slaughter of fleeing soldiers and civilians during the infamous "Turkey shoot)(47).
Given an historical evolution from colonialism to a world of the United Nations
and Human Rights, one has to ask if Ramsey's actions and exposures were a question
of his political alignment, or simply a matter of Right and Wrong?
Is A Liar Not A Liar; Or A War Criminal Not A War Criminal
in the facade of the drive for "Democracy" and the fight against "Tyranny"
across the world peddled by President George W. Bush are increasngly identifiable
through the controlled mainstream Media. In compounding the friable image of its
own political delineation, the Australian Green Left weekly exposed the
true forces behind Bush's crusade when it reported that the multinational corporation,
Halliburton, had moved from losses of $65,000,000 to a net profit of $365,000,000
in the space of some 12 months, and that a third of its $1,500,000,000 revenue
had come from "Iraq-related" work. For the United Kingdom, Chancellor
of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, when referring to the death of Ann Toward's husband
in Iraq, stated that the Government had acted in the British national interest,
and that "We believed we were making the right decisions in the British national
economic interests". The British economy is already in trouble with a report
that Chancellor Brown is to borrow a record £9,000,000,000. In the United
States the Ford Company and General Motors are in considerable financial trouble.
In Italy Fiat is about to follow them by converting debt into equity. We have
already expressed our reservations about the relative impotence of electorates
in a one-man-one-vote Democracy. It is easy therefore to see how and why economic
colonisation; the privatisation of national infrastructures, free markets and
inward investment have enslaved much of Africa and Latin America abetted by the
process of selective democratisation. It is further possible to understand why
the real impetus behind the democratic process is the elimination of more autocratic
regimes, however accepted and suited to the domestic economic scenario, because
they constitute a potential threat to globalising economic forces, largely from
the United States.
Under the heading "Reformers
and hardliners", Neil Clark, writing in The Guardian, asks "What
do Iran, Venezuela and Belarus have in common?" He asks why the rulers of
these countries are repeatedly referred to by C.N.N., the Wall Street Journal
and the Financial Times as "hardliners", whereas regimes such
as those in Bulgaria and Hungary that have capitulated to the global economic
agenda of the free market are not? The ultimate moral fallacy of the drive for
"Democracy" has been seen, for example, in the West's long-term support
for oppressive regimes in economically important Indonesia. We are now seeing
the same selectivity in the case of Uzbekistan, regarded as an ally of the United
States in the war against tyranny, a country that sits on vast oil and natural
gas deposits, and where the United States has established a military base. The
British Ambassador, Craig Murray, was summarily dismissed from his post after
he broke ranks to expose the ruthlessness of President Islam Karimov and his government,
even to the point of boiling victims alive, and to which it is also believed the
United States is sending suspects to be tortured.
Time magazine let another cat out of the bag when it revealed the privately
expressed views of Sir Ivor Roberts:
Roberts, Britain's Ambassador to Italy, declared last September that the "best
recruiting sergeant for al Qa'eda" was none other than the United states
President, George W. Bush. With the American election entering its final furlongs,
he added, "If anyone is ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush,
it is al Qa'eda". The remarks, made at an off-the-record conference, were
leaked in the Italian press, and Sir Ivor, facing the displeasure of his Foreign
Office masters for committing the sin of candour, disowned the comments. But now,
as the soot settles in the London Underground, the words hang again in the air.
Centre stage in this global scenario
we have British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In May, 1999, Professor Noam Chomsky
wrote to On Target with his pervading impression of Blair "as a slightly
crazed six-year old with a big grin while he plays with his new star wars gun
that can wipe out everyone in sight". We have observed nothing since to disabuse
us of this picture of a strategically immature, presidentially ambitious but skilful
and superficially plausible orator. Blair helped precipitate the invasion of Iraq
on the basis of a "dodgy dossier" of cranked-up evidence that purported
to show that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. At the final
meeting of the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, prior to the
invasion in the following March, United Nations Inspectors Hans Blix and al Baderei
both confirmed the lack of viable evidence. We also now know from Adel Safty of
Al-Jazeera that President George W. Bush had already agreed with Blair on the
invasion of Iraq at Crawford in Texas, in April, 2002. Faced with this incriminating
scenario Blair has repeatedly changed his ground on the reasons for the invasion,
even citing the wholly spurious "45 minute" threat from Saddam Hussein's
non-existent weapons. Blair has continued his diversionary posturing by embracing
one new "initiative" after another in his global perambulations. However,
the disclosure of advice from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, on the very
friable justification for invading Iraq, forced Blair's duplicity back into the
public domain. This was further exacerbated when The Times and Knight-Ridder
revealed further evidence of confidential discussions in which Blair had sought
an excuse to pursue the invasion. We have read carefully the full 13 pages of
Lord Goldsmith's letter. United Nations Resolution 1441, upon which much of the
argument was based, was clearly drafted to mean "all things to all men".
There is little doubt in our minds that Blair was responsible for accepting the
most convenient interpretation of this Resolution to support his subsequent actions.
But for the overwhelming supremacy of the United States, there has to be little
question that both Blair and his Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, along with President
George W. Bush, would stand condemned as war criminals.
UNITED IN GRIEF
WHAT OUR LEADERS HAVE VISITED ON US ALL
old Zeinab was brought to Britain for treatment by free-lance journalist Lee Gordon,
who is now in the process of selling his house to pay for her continued treatment,
after she had lost a leg and 17 members of her family as a result of the actions
of the Coalition Forces in Iraq. Yet when Zainab learned of the plight of the
ill-fated hostage in Iraq, Ken Bigley, who was subsequently killed by his captors,
she had the compassion to write to his brother, Paul, in Holland, expressing her
understanding and sympathy. After the bombing in London on 7th July, 2005, in
which some 60 lives have probably been lost, and many more maimed and injured,
Professor Iman Al Saadun wrote from Basra to the people of London. In this she
voiced her understanding of what they had suffered, and made a plea on their behalf
for what political leaders in the West had visited on their own people and those
in Iraq in their ruthless pursuit of profit and control of the world's natural
resources for their own ends.
To The British People
from Professor Iman Al Saadun
am sending this letter to the British people and in particular to the residents
of London. For a period of hours, you have lived through moments of desperate
anxiety and horror. In those hours you lost a member of your family or a friend,
and we wish to tell you in total honesty that we too grieve when human lives pass
away. I cannot tell you how much we hurt when we see desperation and pain on the
face of another person. For we have lived through this situation, and continue
to live through it every day since your country and the United States formed an
alliance and laid plans to attack Iraq. The Prime Minister of your country, Tony
Blair, said that those who carried out the explosions did so in the name of Islam.
The Secretary of State of the United States, Condoleezza Rice, described the bombings
as an act of barbarism. The United Nations Security Council met and unanimously
condemned the event.
I would like to
ask you, the free British people, to allow me to inquire: in whose name was our
country blockaded for 12 years? In whose name were our cities bombed using internationally
prohibited weapons? In whose name did the British Army kill Iraqis and torture
them? Was that in your name? Or in the name of religion? Or humanity? Or freedom?
Or democracy? What do you call the killing of more than 2,000,000 children? What
do you call the pollution of the soil and the water with Depleted Uranium and
other lethal substances?
What do you
call what happened in the prisons in Iraq; in Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca and the many
other prison camps? What do you call the torture of men, women, and children?
What do you call tying bombs to the bodies of prisoners and blowing them apart?
What do you call the refinement of methods of torture for use on Iraqi prisoners,
such as pulling off limbs, gouging out eyes, putting out cigarettes on their skin,
and using cigarette lighters to set fire to the hair on their heads? Does the
word "barbaric" adequately describe the behaviour of your troops in
Iraq? May we ask why the Security Council did not condemn the massacre in al Amiriyah
and what happened in al Fallujah, Tal'afar, Sadr City, and an Najaf? Why does
the world watch as our people are killed and tortured and not condemn the crimes
being committed against us? Are you human beings and we something less? Do you
think that only you can feel pain and we can't? In fact it is we who are most
aware of how intense is the pain of the mother who has lost her child, or the
father who has lost his family. We know very well how painful it is to lose those
You don't know our martyrs,
but we know them. You don't remember them, but we remember them. You don't cry
over them, but we cry over them. Have you heard the name of the little girl Hannan
Salih Matrud? Or of the boy Ahmad Jabir Karirn? Or Sa'id Shabrarn? Yes, our dead
have names too. They have faces and stories and memories. There was a time when
they were among us, laughing and playing. They had dreams, just as you have. They
had a tomorrow awaiting them. But today they sleep among us with no tomorrow on
which to wake. We don't hate the British people or other peoples of the world.
This war was imposed upon us, but we are now fighting it in defence of ourselves.
Because we want to live in our homeland "the free land of Iraq" and
to live as we want to live, not as your Government or the American Government
wish. Let the families of those killed know that the responsibility for the Thursday
morning London bombings lies with Tony Blair and his policies. Stop your war against
our people! Stop the daily killing that your troops commit! End your occupation
of our homeland!
Note:. Prices are shown where available from
Bloomfield Books, and represent only a selection relevant to the theme of this
edition of On Target. A wide range of reading may be found in the Stock Price
List (S.P.L.), which may be obtained post free on request from the address on
the last page. Books temporarily out of stock are annotated *. Out of print, or
older works, may be obtained through the Book Search Service, or the Second-Hand
Book Service, both of which are operated by Mr. T.G. Turner, for which details
are available as for the S.P.L.
Sheldon. Billions for the Banker$ and Debts for the People - A Study. America's
Promise Ministries, Idaho, U.S.A. New edition; £4.00.
(18) On Target,
Vol. 34, Nos. 23 & 24, 14th & 18th May, 2005.
(19) Martin, Rose L.
Fabian Freeway - High Road To Socialism In The U.S.A. 1884-1966. Western
(20) On Target, Vol. 30, Nos. 4 & 5, 12th & 26th August,
2000. Power - The Drive For The New World Order.
(21) Young, George K. Subversion
and the British Riposte. Ossian Publishers Ltd., 1984. H/B; £12.00.
(22) On Target, Vol. 34, Nos. 23 & 24, Op. cit.
(23) On Target, Vol. 34,
Nos. 5 & 6, 4th & 18th September, 2004. Control And Nature Of The Coming
(24) On Target, Vol. 34, Nos. 23 & 24, Op. cit.
(26) Enquiries about the Freedom Association should be addressed to:
T.F.A., P.O. Box 2820, Bridgnorth, Shropshire, WV16 6YR; tel/fax: (01746) 861267;
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; Website: <www.tfa.net>
(27) On Target, Vol. 31,
Nos. 3 & 4, 11th & 25th August, 2001. The Planned Break-Up Of The United
(28) On Target, Vol. 32, Nos.12 & 13, 14th & 28th December,
2002. Dangers Of The European Arrest Warrant.
(29) On Target, Vol. 33, Nos.
9 - 11, 1st, 15th & 29th November, 2003. Can The House Of Lords Save British
(30) The Trend In International Affairs Since The War, read
by Professor Arnold Toynbee of the Royal Institute of International Affairs to
the Fourth Annual Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International
relations. Held at Copenhagen in June, 1931. Published in the Social Crediter,
Vol. 60 No. 2, March-April, 1981. £2.00.
(31) Design for Europe.
A Design for Freedom Publication, 1947.
(32) The Scorpion, Issue 24, Spring
2005. Enquiries should be addressed to The Scorpion, B.C.M. 5766, London, WC1N
3XX (U.K.), OR Postfach 850505, Koln 51030, Germany. Current subscription rates:
Surface, all countries, £22/$28; North America, South Africa, airmail, £28/$36;
Other places airmail, £32/$39.
(33) Carr, Edward Hallett. Conditions
Of Peace. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1942.
(34) On Target, Vol. 22, Nos
1 & 2, 11th & 25th July, 1992. A Free Press In A Democratic Society.
(35) On Target, Vol. 22, Nos 3 & 4, 8th & 22nd August, 1992. Controlling
Communications, or The Media And The Masses.
(36) On Target, Vol. 22, Nos.
14 & 15, 9th & 23rd January, 1993. "Diversion".
On Target, Vol. 23, Nos. 16 & 17, 5th & 19th February, 1994. Media, Monopoly
And Morality .
(38) Dye, Thomas R. Who's Running America? The Carter Years.
Prentice Hall Inc., 1976, second edition, 1979.
(39) Chomsky, Noam. Chronicles
of Dissent - Interviews with David Barsamian. A.K. Press, 1992. £12.25*.
(40) Abboud, Edward. Invisible Enemy - Israel, Politics, Media and American
Culture. Vox Publishing Company L.L.C., 2001. £19.95.
J.J. Jewish Power - Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Perseus Books,
(42) On Target, Vol. 34, Nos. 12 & 13, 11th & 25th December,
2004. Terrorists, "Terrorists" And Terrorism.
(43) Young, George
K. Op. cit.
(44) Fischer, Louis. Oil Imperialism - The International Struggle
For Petroleum. International Publishers, New York, 1926.
(45) Mohr, Anton.
The Oil War. Martin Hopkinson & C. Ltd., 1926.
Kenneth R. The Death Lobby - How the West Armed Iraq. Houghton Mifflin
(47) Clark, Ramsey. The Fire This Time - U.S. War Crimes
in the Gulf. Thunder's Mouth Press, 1994.