Monday, April 28, 2008

On the Anti-semitism that led to Two Holocausts, Past & Present

Shock & Awe Holocaust

While I do not wish, in any way, to belittle the Shoa or Holocaust of the 1940s I am amazed at the way the more recent Muslim Holocaust (1991 to the present) is --and I am tempted to say wilfully-- ignored by even those who might consider themselves to be liberals, of the left or of the anti-war movement. It isn't as if the figures to prove that Holocaust are not there. The Australian scientist, academic, lecturer, writer, author and artist, Dr Gideon Polya published these figures almost a year ago and his web-article is available here and a commentary here.

Dr Polya has also published a huge pharmacological text entitled Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds. A pharmacological reference guide to sites of action and biological effects (London & New York). He previously published a detailed book entitled Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability (Melbourne, 1998).

The latter dealt with the 2-century atrocity of British rule over India culminating in the man-made Bengal Famine of 1943/44 that killed 4 million people but which has been largely deleted from British histriography in a continuing process of sustained, racist, holocaust denial. His most recent book, Body Count, documents the similarly non-reported avoidable death of 1.3 billion people since 1950 on Spaceship Earth with the First World in control of the flight deck --for further details of Body Count, see

Why is it then that the West is so obsessed with events that took place over half a century ago while it blocks out the reality of what is going on right now before us and as this is being written? I would maintain that in both cases it is because the First World or what preceded it in Europe remains stubbornly in denial of its anti-semitic past as well as the new anti-semitism it practises against the Muslim world.

At an extreme level we can see this caricatured in the traditionally anti-semitic, racist BNP allying itself with a Jewish Zionist in the hope of attracting Jewish votes! The new tactic of the opportunist BNP, it appears, is no longer an anti-semitism levelled at Jews but of one against Muslims. While at one level this appears to be totally opportunistic at another it gives us a fascinating if not horrific insight into the darker corners of the European psyche in which the racial memories of persecution against both Jews and Muslims remains embedded.

Crusading against the Antichrist

Europe has never really owned the huge karmic debt it created for itself in what we appropriately call the Dark Ages. As a result, it was condemned to relive those horrors, first through the Holocaust of the Nazis and now the Holocaust committed by the Anglo-Saxon Alliance, the new Nazis, against that other semitic people the Iraqis and the partly-semitic people of Afghanistan. Somewhere in the European mind a myth was formed centuries ago of the crusading Christian who would prevail over the shifty and usurious Jew as well as the fanatical Mohammedan.

Hitler constantly used the first caricature and described himself as a Christian doing the work of the Lord. How different was his claim to the one we hear from today's Christian Zionists who seek to pressure US Presidents to attack Iran and bring on a final, nuclear Armageddon? And both the current US and UK governments have carried out a calculated and sustained campaign ever since the fabricated 911 incident to demonise, scapegoat and terrorise Muslims as fanatics and devils.

None of this, I believe, could have been possible if it were not for the Myth of the Crusading Christ that runs so deeply in the psyche of the Anglo-American and primarily Protestant mind. The psychiatrist, Carl Gustav Jung, argued that the everyday lives of humans have always been governed by one or another form of Myth. Myths, he said, are important symbols of meaning to the human psyche. Without acknowledging the importance of that inner world, men would find themselves empty of meaning. Something else would fill the vacuum which had been previously filled by the old myths. He warned that that was happening with the growth of fascism and the new myth of the strongman Dictator.

But it is interesting that even the strongman Dictators found themselves having to cash-in on the popular Christian myth that turns the Jew into the Antichrist by blaming Christ's death on the Cross on the Jews! Basically the same myth that Sacha Baron Cohen alludes to while singing his outrageous song, Throw the Jew down the Well, to gullible American rednecks. Anti-semitism against both Jews and Muslims dwells deep down in the Anglo-American and European psyche.

Two Sociopaths of a Kind

The current political correctness over the Shoa Holocaust originates in the feelings of guilt that Europeans still collectively feel about the brutal reality of where that anti-semitism led them to sixty years ago. It was easy enough to blame it all on the Germans, a defeated nation. And especially so as it was an Austrian that the Germans had allowed to lead them into the Nightmare. But before the coming of Hitler, German anti-semitism was really no different in nature to European anti-semitism in general, including that of Britain, immortalised in Shakespeare's evil Shylock and past pogroms.

The great irony is that while it is now politically correct to genuflect in atonement of their past sins against the Jewish people, Anglo-Americans project their inner guilt by murdering millions of those other semites, the Muslims, while at the same time seeking to revile and demonise them as terrorists and criminals! In tribal wars you have to do this. You have to justify your lust for murder by blaming it all on the evils of those you are just about to murder. The Zionists, on the other hand, seem to have no problems working with today's anti-semites. Why should they after having worked so closely with Hitler before?

It is totally understandable that the children of the victims of the Shoa should never forget how their parents and grandparents were murdered in the name of some absurd political dogma. But it is equally understandable that the relatives (if there are any left) of the eight million Muslims who died during the Anglo-Saxon coalition's Shock and Awe tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan should feel the same. The West rightly tried and punished earlier war criminals who happened also to be on the defeated side. How long, I wonder, and under what circumstances of a required defeat will it be before the war criminals of the West are similarly tried and punished?

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

President Evo Morales calls for 'reparations to the earth'

At UN forum on indigenous issues, Bolivian president calls for global economic overhaul 10 hours ago.

President Evo Morales outlined a plan at the UN on Tuesday to rescue the world from environmental degradation and injustice. Drawing connections between free-market economics, excessive consumption, environmental problems and social injustice, the Bolivian leader urged the world to “put an end to the exploitation of human beings and the pillage of natural resources” by rejecting free-market theory and reallocating the money spent on war to fighting environmental and climate problems.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Alex Jones: Officer Jack Boot

Alex Jones missed his vocation as an actor. But he makes the point. Our societies' mindset is being militarised in the most insidious way. I have heard British cops talking about 'civilians' as if the police were something other than civilians.

Either this is being done through sheer ignorance of police regulations or despite them and deliberately to create the idea that the police are part of the military.

A third possibility is that the police, having in reality become para-military in nature (which I believe they have), are reflecting the true nature of things.

The police should be kept constantly under public control & reminded of their inherently civilian status.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Nazis in the BBC's Closet?

I know the BBC is nothing more than a conduit for the government's ideological sewage but I was still alarmed at the way someone in the BBC is stirring-up racial differences in Britain by highlighting that madman, Enoch Powell's, Rivers of Blood speech as it did today.

Why does the BBC have to keep on digging-up this stuff from the sewers of the British psyche? Is it the BBC's intention to revive Powell as some sort of martyred national hero in the eyes of a generation that has little or no memory of the racial strife and persecution this country went through in the 'sixties and more particularly under that very-British fascist, Margaret Thatcher?

How many black people have died and suffered at the hands of British white supremacists already? Is it the BBC's hope that they should be joined by many more in a Britain torn apart with economic and social turmoil?

As one who migrated to these islands nearly 50 years ago, I must say it in public: thanks to the BBC I have been made to feel like a Jew in Hitler's Germany.

Ol' Macky's Back in Town

Oh yes, there are certainly Nazis inside the BBC as there are in this abomination of a Nu Labor government and the Tories who are deliberately seeking to stir-up racial and nationalist turmoil with the intention of creating unrest and lawlessness so that they have an excuse to declare martial law and replace parliament altogether with a dictatorship.

The old-time Socialist, Louis Armstrong, knew exactly what he was singing about, warning the USA of McCarthyite, fascist racism!

I have said it many times before: Britain today is in a similar state to the last days of the German Weimar Republic when the Nazis were already taking over. The government has already scape-goated British Muslims as its surrogate Jews (a different slant on the traditional anti-semitism if you will). Already, anti-war campaigners are being persecuted by Britain's men-in-black. Thatcher destroyed the Trade Unions and turned Britain plc into one, vast concentration-camp.

Those who blame it all on "Europe" clearly have no idea of the domestic origins of the British police state. And while chattering on about 'national sovereignty' they forget that not only is the idea of a nation-state a feudal, capitalist concept but that any sovereignty the people had --and in imperialist Britain they never did have any-- has been superseded by a fascist state masquerading as a democracy.

And now, the BBC quite calculatedly revives the spectre of racism. It's clear to this new Jew why it is they're doing it ..

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Tweedledum & Tweedledee in the Great British Non-Debate

Nowhere in Europe can the issue of Europe have become so polarised as it has in Britain. Yet the issue of a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has been confused (and I suspect deliberately so) with the question of whether Britain should remain or withdraw from the EU.

Whereas there is a strong outcry for a Referendum in certain quarters the prospect of withdrawal remains much less popular. Britain's anti-EU campaigners know this and seek to cloud the issue by using the call for a Referendum as proof of the unpopularity of the EU. It's no accident that anti-EU newspapers like the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph are all the most vociferous when it comes to demanding a Referendum. And David Cameron's Tory Party, not known for its love of things European, is no different.

During the recent House of Commons debate on the Lisbon Treaty it was significantly the Tories who felt threatened by the prospect of a European Defence Force which they see as a threat to the present Anglo-American 'special relationship' and alliance. Cameron claims that the 'special relationship' is in his and the Tory party's DNA. It shouldn't take much analysis to understand what he means.

And whereas it is perfectly understandable that writers like Susan George should denounce the Treaty as a blueprint for 'neo-liberal' exploitation and for the people of France and Holland to have rejected the proposed Constitution for similar reasons we should be much more cautious with the British Right as well as the caravan of anti-EU nationalists which follows on behind it.

A major reason the British Right is fighting the Lisbon Treaty is because it sees the creation of a European Defence Force as the first step towards a military bloc which would seriously challenge not only the present Anglo-Saxon Alliance but the imperialist military power behind it.

Now Eire is under threat from Nato

When reminded of the paradox in their 'independence' argument the anti-EU nationalists have no answer. For how can they really be serious about a British 'independence' which in the cruel light of day simply does not exist? And if the nationalists on the Left are, as they often profess to be, anti-Nato and against the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan how can they square this with their hostility to a EU which is feared by US analysts as a growing threat to US foreign policy?

Opposition to the EU in Britain tends to come from a deeper source of resentment than just concern for the threat of unemployment resulting from the Treaty's 'neoliberal' economic policies. It is something to be found in the well-springs of national identity or now rather a lack of one following a post-imperial hangover. It is probably no accident that there exists no serious interest here in a debate about the need for more democracy within the EU. Why bother when you can get your opinions ready-made from the Sun? And yet how many who read the Sun know that Rupert Murdoch, a naturalised US citizen, is a mortal enemy of the EU? And if they did would they trouble to join up the dots?

Unlike Eire with its Dublin Castle Forum debate the people of the UK are not being allowed any debate over the Lisbon Treaty. The British must rely on the paucity of --even then grossly distorted-- information it receives from the national mainstream media and a government whose attitude to the European Project is in a word ambivalent. While on the one hand successfully blackmailing the EU with threats to veto the Treaty if not allowed major opt-outs concerning industrial relations and civil rights Gordon Brown returns to our shores claiming these opt-outs to be an "achievement"! An achievement for whom, the people or a reactionary government going busily about turning Britain into a police-state?

There never was a time when Britain more needed an intelligent, informed national debate about where this country is headed for. But that need is not even on the agenda of an unelected Brown government whose deeply undemocratic nature makes even the Tories look like the champions of freedom. Of course, they are not. If Labour and the Tories have one thing in common it is that they share a deep belief in the Atlantic alliance between Britain and the USA.

That Alliance, while in the interests of Anglo-American capital, is certainly no friend of the people. Both Labour and the Tories would like to keep Britain in the EU to act as a trojan horse for US interests and interventionism. And that is why Tweedledum and Tweedledee do not want a national debate on Europe or, indeed, anything else.

While campaigning for a more democratic Europe the reality of the Anglo-American status quo should never be forgotten. What European democrats should be working towards is not only a decentralised and democratic European Federation --one that is truly people-friendly-- but for a Europe that has the economic, diplomatic and military teeth to present itself as a defensive counter-force in a new, multipolar world of powers.

Paul Carline from the Initiative & Referendum Institute, Marburg, comments:

An excellent analysis. There are very good reasons for believing that a federated Europe based on popular sovereignty and direct-democratic rights (citizen-initiated referendums and obligatory referendums on key issues - as is already the case in the Irish Republic) would be a safer and more prosperous place.

There's every reason to think that Britain would also be better off as a federal country, like Switzerland and Germany.

In fact, Switzerland, with its 26 sovereign cantons, each with its own constitution based on popular sovereignty, is a great model for an EU which now has 27 member states.
Academic studies in Switzerland show that the more direct democracy there is i.e. the more the people have real rights of political decision-making and initiative, the happier people are and the more efficient and prosperous the economy is.

When anti-EU people speak of 'national sovereignty', they are talking about an undemocratic claim to exclusive power by an unrepresentative parliament and government in which a tiny handful of people around the prime minister can take momentous decisions such as committing Britain to illegal wars (incidentally making those who promoted and supported those decisions war criminals in international and domestic law. cf. the Campaign to Make Wars History at

Is that the kind of sovereignty we want?

from Campaign for a Democratic Europe

Tuesday, April 15, 2008


Supporters of the European Referendum Campaign agree to the following appeal:
You cannot build Europe without the consent of the people, that is why we direct the following demands to

* Heads of states and governments
* National parliaments
* the European Parliament

1. The EU Reform Treaty must be submitted to the citizens in a referendum in each single EU member state.

2. If necessary the Parliaments of the EU member states must make the appropriate legal and constitutional provisions for a referendum.

3. A real and unbiased debate on the EU Constitution alias the Reform Treaty must be secured in the framework of a fair referendum.

Fair referendums allow both sides to present their points of view on the same conditions. We want a proper debate which deals with the real topic and brings Europe closer to the citizens.

The Campaign for a Democratic Europe continues here

Sunday, April 13, 2008

The British Campaign for a Democratic Europe - A View Out of Chaos

Though the UK has been part of what is today the European Union for over 35 years the people of this country --and in particularly in England-- have never been very enthusiastic about a united Europe or what is known on the Continent as the European Project.

As the European Project has developed and evolved, bringing into it more and more countries, there has, at the same time, grown an increasing feeling of concern amongst some Europeans that the increasing centralisation of power to Brussels is a threat to their respective national identities. The rejection in Holland and France of the proposed European Constitution reflected, at least in part, that concern.

It wasn't the whole story by any means. Those on the Left were equally if not more concerned about the effect of the neo-liberal economics adopted by the Commission over the last eight years which have superseded its old social-democratic policies. The Commission was not entirely to blame for this coup from the Right for it was merely reflecting the policies filtering down to it from its Council of Ministers and its unelected Round Table of Industry which plays such a major role in policy-making. The Council and the Round Table in their turn reflect the 'neo-liberal' policies being laid down by diktat via large financial organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

But by the time this sea-change in economic and social policy manifested itself at the grassroots of European society it was seen, understandably, as a threat to the national way of life associated with an ever-more centralised and distant Brussels eurocracy.

This has led to a resurgence of nationalist reaction in certain EU countries and never more so than in the traditionally insular island-nation that is the United Kingdom. A similar reaction appears to be taking place in Eire which from having been an enthusiastic partner in Europe during the days of industrial boom has, it appears, to have gone sour on the idea when boom turned into recession. Was the old Irish enthusiasm for the European Project never more than opportunistic? And in that sense was Britain's decision to join the EEC and to remain in it based more on popular feelings of anxiety and insecurity than on any real enthusiasm for European unity?

Faced with the collapse of 'neo-liberal' capitalism and something even more fundamentally serious pointing to the culmination of a Kondratieff Cycle, no less, Europe along with the rest of the Planet is facing a time of re-evolutionary change. During such a time everything goes up into the air and especially old, unresolved business. The current upsurge of a proto-fascist nationalism in countries like the UK are very much part of this phenomenon.

The emerging nationalism is characterised by being both of the Left and the Right and within it is to be found a chauvinist, if not quite racist, undercurrent that is fuelled by opportunist social fascists who whip-up paranoia among the more gullible of an attack on society by unseen or undefined forces. This idea is particularly a favourite of the middle-aged 'grey revolutionaries' who see their comfortable and relatively secure way of life under threat in a country like Britain which is undergoing a downward slide in its quality of living, entirely predictable as, at least in part, being the result of its post-imperial hangover.

The British people never came to terms with themselves as to their new sense of post-imperial identity. Alf Garnett-style chauvinism was portrayed to look rightly ridiculous. Al Murray's Happy Hour followed the tradition of self-parody but in a disturbingly ambivalent manner where you can never be quite sure whether he's really taking the piss out of British xenophobia or not.

Alf Garnett, the Quintessential Bigot

But it's true and there's no point in trying to side-step the issue. Despite or due to an influx of immigration, Britain remains an insular and xenophobic culture. Years ago this was explained to me by a Dutch-woman with whom I was discussing the peculiarly British sense of insularity and superiority. "It's quite natural," she said, "and only to be expected from an island nation. People who live on islands are more wary of outsiders."

Well, I think that she had a good point but her explanation could not account for the totally unfounded sense of superiority/inferiority that, despite all the changes, lies at the heart of the British make-up together with a stubborn monolingual outlook which when challenged invariably is met with the retort, "Everyone else speaks English so why should we bother to speak their language?" Which entirely misses the point: the reason why we might bother to learn another's language is really more from a curiosity to learn about other people, their cultures and way of thinking and living. As a nation, we in Britain don't much care for that.

Until recently, that singular and self-congratulatory attitude could be attributable to a natural sense of superiority inculcated in the British mind by centuries of imperialist, Kiplingesque values. Britannia could do no wrong in the manner in which she ruled. But that sense of innate superiority took a thorough bashing some decades ago, leaving the average Brit confused and without any sense of national identity with which to replace the old myth.

The present attempt by British politicians to make new citizens swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and Country and the like comes not so much from a sense of innate superiority of the old kind but of a terrible feeling of insecurity and panic that the traditional tapestry of British culture, whatever that was, has become so moth-eaten that it's coming apart at the seams. The last straw, it was perceived, was the fake threat of Islamisation --deliberately created as an ideological weapon by Washington's neocons-- which has given vent to a deep vein of racism and national insecurity that runs through the British psyche.

Islamophobia, however, is not something peculiar to the social fascist attitudes of the British middle-classes and what used to be thought of as the lower or working-classes. It runs right across the nominally Christian cultures of Europe, North America and Australia and has something to do with the collision between a White and predominantly non-White culture and worldview. The danger, though, is that it stokes up all the old anti-semitic traditions of western Christianity which we are seeing now re-presented in a different form under the pretence of an entirely spurious 'War on Terror'. This so-called clash of cultures was deliberately stoked-up in order to justify the new imperialism of the United States and its ever-willing sidekick, the UK government.

Combined with the insecurity and confusion caused by a changing world all this coagulates in the British mind to look as if it really is under a terrible attack from outside. Rather than any attempt at self-analysis, the fear is then projected outwards to be seen as a threat from beyond our borders. It's immigrants, it's coloureds, it's Islamic terrorists, it's the Eurocrats who are determined to subvert and change our lives. They're going to take away our freedoms and turn us into "a socialist state" as one of the more notable scare-mongers of the Right presently doing the circuit, Mr Brian Gerrish, would have it. And not only that says Mr Gerrish, who is in a habit of terrifying young people with the story, but "they're out to kill you!"

Gerrish reminds me of a bitter old man who picks on children to terrify them with his horror stories. It's a kind of power trip which today would normally be met with ridicule or reported to the police as harassment or worse. But Gerrish is talking about the EU, not nasty serial-killers. And kids will believe that stuff because it sounds like a juicy conspiracy theory. Not only kids but perfectly grown-up adults who like nothing else but a conspiracy to get off on and wet their libido. In a blame culture such as ours conspiracies abound. It's easy to blame others for the state of denial in which we stubbornly remain.

And there's the rub. For it was precisely out of a similar blame culture in the German Weimar Republic that Adolf Hitler rose to power, not through a coup but the ballot-box. If ever there was an example of the imperfections of democracy that had to be it. It was easy to blame all the problems of Weimar Germany on the treachery of the Allies in the Hall of Versailles. Just as it is easy to blame the miseries of contemporary Britain on immigrants, Muslims and the EU. What is not so easy is to look at ourselves honestly and to ask ourselves what it was we did as a nation that got ourselves into the state we are today. For to do so means coming out of denial. It means facing up to some unpleasant truths about ourselves and our past and accepting responsibility for it all.

It means an accepting of our own accountability for events. No more passing the buck, no more blame-culture, no more nationalist chauvinism. It means growing-up as a culture, a society and a nation. It's nothing less than our part in an evolutionary challenge that the entire human race now faces. And in Britain it's the challenge we face within the character of things as we find them. And part of our challenge is to decide whether we choose an inward-looking separation from the rest of the world or an acceptance that the world has moved on and it's time we moved with it.

Up to now, the controversy about Europe has been polarised deliberately between the centralists of the Eurocracy and the nationalists who loathe the idea of European union to be somehow a threat to their imaginary, domestic Utopias. Whilst the current reality within the countries of Europe is really about whether or not to accept a Constitution masquerading as a Treaty this is being presented to the British public in a characteristically dishonest manner by the Europhobic nationalists as a call for withdrawal.

Nothing could be further from the truth! No one, other than the minority of nationalists who are out to destroy and impose their own tyrannies, is talking about leaving the European Union. What is being hotly debated, and rightly so, is the kind of Europe that we its people would wish to see created. That, for example, is what the admirable Dublin Castle Forum and the national debate surrounding it in Eire is all about.

And clearly, as the video below shows, the Europarliament is very far from being the toothless, mishappen creature it is so often made to seem by those who have no real love of European democracy. We should be supporting, not sneering at it:

The Europarliament in Revolt

But tell that to the nationalists --by nationalists I mean that motley group of Left and Right we find in Britain today-- and you are met with a vacant silence. They have no reply and for good reason. The nationalist view is, as always, one that is founded on untruths and convenient fictions. The Little-British nationalists of both the Left and the Right are really not interested in debate. They don't want to know the truth about the Dublin Castle Forum debate. They just want out. And anyone who dares to question their intolerance is straightaway denounced as some form of traitor or saboteur!

This unhappy band of nationalists are no more than spoilt grown-ups who insist on having everything their own way. While accusing others of intolerance and fascism they are quite unable to see that all they are doing is to project their own inner demons on the rest of us. God help us if these people were ever to gain any real position of power!

It is often said that Britain today is a place of angry people. Given the form of misgovernment and abuse we have to suffer from our collectively corrupt and opportunist politicians who, in all fairness, can do nothing more than to rearrange the deckchairs on the sinking Titanic of capitalism, it's hardly surprising that we should be angry. We are treated in the most disgraceful manner by a secretive and feudal-minded clique of rulers who are determined that the very last thing we should have, and even then God forbid, is anything vaguely resembling a true, representative and accountable democracy.

But it is not just anger, which channelled properly can become a most effective tool for creative change. It is something far worse. It is intolerance all dressed-up in disguise like the wolf after Little-Red-Riding-Hood. And the nationalists, always quick to smell the toxins that anger and intolerance give off, have been very quick to jump in and stir the poisoned cesspit to their advantage. The Gerrish's, the Freedom Associations and their ilk don't fool me. I've been in this game too long. But they are fooling a lot of good but gullible folk --and now particularly among the younger generations. And that is when I say, Basta! Enough!

What has happened to the tolerant, liberal-minded society we Brits so prided ourselves on? What exactly is it in our own mental make-up --never mind others, just leave them out for now please-- that has made us angry and intolerant? Just what has replaced our famed liberal-mindedness with a form of insidious social fascism? For it is this malaise upon which the Little-British nationalists feed upon like vultures.

So, enough! It is time for those of the middle-path to regain the high ground. It is time that good democrats in this country understand the need for and partake in a Campaign for a Democratic Europe. For it is in such a campaign that our collective future lies as a European people, not in some retrogressive return to a past that never was of the kind that our nationalists peddle. The battle between democracy and tyranny is once more astride the stage and we are all actors in this drama whether we admit it or not.

We are truly at a critical moment, not just in Europe but everywhere across this Planet. You could look at it almost as a battle between the forces of Progress and Retrogression. In every sphere, whether it be in our personal, subjective world or in our outward, collective experience we are faced with this evolutionary challenge. In the political world, it is very much another step along the road of democracy versus tyranny.

And in the theatre we find ourselves in on this Planet, the place we know as Europe, the struggle is on. It is but a natural part of the political evolution of a united Europe. I appeal to all fellow-Europeans and Britons, do not allow yourselves to return to the darker days of national revanchism and chaos. To paraphrase Hermann Hesse's, Blick ins Chaos, there exists for us today a window of opportunity, a view through chaos, which we have no real choice but to set our sights on and fly courageously through!

Now Visit the Campaign for a Democratic Europe blogsite here and here

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Give England back its Independence!

Treaty of Union between England and Scotland

Amongst all the talk about independence, sovereignty, the truth and a "socialist police state" takeover of Britain by the EU, one thing is always conveniently forgotten. The so-called United Kingdom is already way down on the skids and soon it will cease to be. The days of the Union are almost over and outside some form of military intervention from London the people of Scotland will have their referendum.

Between now and then we can expect more anti-Independence campaigns generated by the south and their local poetasters. And we shouldn't even be surprised to see the intervention of the department of dirty tricks come up with something nasty from their home on the Thames Embankment.

After all, we've seen what they did to Ireland.

Britain's feudally-minded rulers won't give up their rotten old Union easily. They know that it means an end to their dirty class-based game and their vile 'special relationship' with Washington DC. For even were that relationship to morph into something else where Scotland is treated as an equal partner then things could never be the same again.

The hypocrisy of our anti-EUers, UKIP, Brian Gerrish and his British Free Press, the Freedom Association, Gerrish's sister-organisation, and the rest of the rag-tag of McCarthyite right-wingers has been exposed. While they decry the threat to their precious "sovereignty" (what sovereignty and whose?) from a Federal Europe they treat with scorn and hostility the desire of an increasing number of Scots for an end to the Union.

Articles of Union

So we have two laws: one for the English "freedom fighters" who are valiantly defending our shores in another Battle of Britain no less and entirely another for those ungrateful Scots who bite the hand that feeds them (sic) and who are determined to throw a spanner in the works of their grand plan for the New Jerusalem in a renascent Britannia!

Of course, it' all nonsense. How can independence for the English once free from Brussels be good when independence for a Scotland once free from the Union be bad?
Seems to me the English national-chauvinists want it both ways.

My suggestion to the UKIPpers, the anti-EUers and followers of the Gerrish guru is this: let England have its independence from the EU as well as the Union, let the English pull out of both and see how they manage. Scotland was always a different country so concede to us back our nationhood and let us choose if we wish to continue within a community of nations in the European Union --and, should our people wish it, federal statehood in a future Confederation.

As for our friends in the south, do as you see fit while allowing us the freedom to do the same. While we respect your right to be independent of all others please be so civil as to afford us those same conditions.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Blair: Erstwhile Traitor before his succession by another
The 911 Truth Movement: What really is
our Common Purpose?

It may shock certain good folk to wake up to the fact that due to the evolution of capitalism and its take-over by corporate and multi-national interests we are already living in fascist, police-states. The persistent belief that we live in a democracy results from the incessant brain-washing to which the British state and its mass media subjects us.

It could be argued that in years gone by we enjoyed a limited degree of democracy in that people were free to say what they wanted and to demonstrate. But even in those days Communists were surveilled by the State's secret services and were not so free as non-Communists. Demonstrations were spied on but generally allowed.

Now all that is rapidly changing. Demonstrations are tightly controlled by the Police and often prevented. Increasingly the Police are intervening in areas where they have no business to be and instead of serving the public as a civil arm of the State --as they are mandated to do-- they are beginning to act like para-militaries. The responsibility for this frightening state of affairs must ultimately lie with Whitehall, the Westminster parliament and our oligarchic rulers (you can't call them a government) who have given the green light to a fully-blown Police-State.

This is fascism.

Fascism is basically about the marriage of big business with the state, Mussolini-style. It's not about Hitler uniforms and goose-stepping soldiers in coal-scuttle helmets (the latter which the USA has adopted curiously enough!). In the early days, Mussolini and even Hitler wore morning suits. It was only after the outbreak of WWII that they regularly wore uniform (and even Churchill began to wear his boiler-suits).

There is at present a lot of controversy about an organisation calling itself Common Purpose.

Disturbingly, Common Purpose appears to be adopting similar fascist attitudes. The fact that it does this by infiltrating various levels of society is extremely disturbing. Its whistle-blower, Brian Gerrish, himself expresses certain crypto-fascist views when he gets paranoid about what he calls Reds and while attempting to present Common Purpose as a front-organisation for the European Commission!

When Gerrish can produce a credible argument with credible proof linking CP with the Commission I'll take him seriously.

Meantime, there is a very interesting convergence of opinion amongst us all in 911 Truth which I feel is vitally important to look at. We know that we are all united on the 911 Conspiracy issue (together with similar conspiracies relating to Madrid, Bali, 7/7 and Bombay). We may disagree on the EU issue but of more immediate concern is the commonly perceived threat of a growing police-state in Britain.

In that regard, I think we can all unite in supporting the legal action taken by John Harris.* Can I suggest that, while leaving out the EU red-herring, we all seek to found our own Common Purpose behind this affidavit and help to start a movement of Peace, Justice and Democracy to oppose the British police-state?


In the 'seventies when Lech Walensa and the Polish unions helped create Solidarnosc (Solidarity) to initially protect Union rights against the State it led to the mushrooming of people's Defence Groups across Poland whose purpose it was to defend the rights of the people against a centralised State apparatus.

We, in Britain, are now in a similar situation. It follows that we should now create people's Defence Groups across Britain to defend ourselves from our rulers and their Police State.


Having read John Harris' website in more detail, it appears that this Affidavit refers to the EU Lisbon Treaty, although no mention of such is included in the body of the Affidavit.

If it is the case that the Affidavit is meant as an attack on the EU then that makes it part of a campaign that is not so much against the Treaty but the EU itself. That gives it a divisive nature making it impossible for a considerable section of the population to support.

Certainly in my country, Scotland, a party like UKIP will never achieve much support if for no other reason that it supports a Union whose popularity, north of the border is decreasing inexorably. The latest headlines in the Scottish Daily Mail today indicate a further lead for the SNP.

Reading his articles it appears that Harris is no friend of Scottish independence. That being the case I must sadly retract my support for Mr Harris and his Affidavit.

Monday, April 07, 2008

The Bush-Hitler Connection

The History is Real

The parallels between Bush and Hitler are obvious and impossible to deny despite the whining of the right wing lunatic fringe (eg. Fox News.)

* Hitler engaged in intimidation and fraud to "win" elections

* Hitler's office had an "open door" policy for any corporate criminal who was willing to support him financially

* Hitler used fabricated evidence to justify attacking and occupying other countries

* Hitler looted the wealth of other countries, German government resources and classes of German citizens to finance his operations.

* Hitler manufactured terrorist threats and used these threats to rationalize the development of a police state including the loss of fundamental citizen rights and the build of a vast interment camps.

And on and on it goes.

There's a reason these similarities between Bush and Hitler go far beyond the predictable patterns of human psychopathology...

The Bush family had a long and deep involvement with the Nazi movement. Since then, the Bush family has surrounded itself with allies, advisors and agents who emulate Nazi values.

from Brasscheck TV

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Protests against Ukraine joining NATO

Bush pushes NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine against Russia's objections

Thursday April 3rd, 2008

Bush NATO expansion plans blocked

Not wanting confrontation with Russia, Germany and France block Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO

Friday April 4th, 2008

NATO thwarts Bush

Aijaz Ahmad: President Bush leaves NATO Summit without achieving major objectives

Friday April 4th, 2008

Croatians demonstrate against Bush and NATO

US President visits new NATO member Croatia in show of support for ally government

Saturday April 5th, 2008


Rory's Comment:
Toadying up to the Bushco gang in its usual way News 24, perhaps the BBC's most propagandistic arm, failed to mention anything of a split in NATO with the refusal of many countries to allow Bush his way over the Ukraine and Georgia. Instead the BBC employed its customary slant of presenting the Russians as the ongoing threat --the very opposite of the truth! The average British person is aware that there's something wrong about the way the news is presented to them. Few though have any suspicion that Aunty BBC has become a bellicose mouthpiece for the USUK's new imperialism.

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Now it's Official: UK Government adopts the Sign of the Swastika

Remember that Olympic slogan?

Now this official Whitehall logo!

Not only are they War Criminals,

but the observation has often been made that when social-democrats lurch to the Right, as Nu Labor has, they fall into the Fascist camp of corporate capitalism.

(Oswald Mosley was a Labour MP before his fascist adventure)

Now this War Criminal has been nominated as a candidate for the EU Presidency.

Let's kick him out!

Sign & circulate this Petition Now!

Petition against the nomination of Tony Blair as "President of the European Union"

Wednesday, April 02, 2008


It’s common knowledge, he reveals, CIA, Mossad behind terror attacks

By the Staff of American Free Press

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:

“All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe…know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”

Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.

Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and ’80s. Gladio’s specialty was to carry out what they termed “false flag” operations—terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcherWebster Tarpley saying “The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga’s assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America’s propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.

(Issue #52, December 24, 2007)