October 17, 2009
When I think of the crisis we are going through these days, the past times when Britain was involved in World Wars I and II and the debts she incurred in come also to my memory. One of the outcomes of these wars was the foundation of the State of Israel, which was demanded of Britain by Baron Rothschild as a proof of gratefulness for the loans his House made to the British Government.
Not only Britain but almost all the countries of the world are now incurring in debts in a desperate effort to climb out of the pit of the crisis, which – every aspect of it so attests to -, the private banking system has submerged us into, and I am thinking which compensation will that very same banking system demand of our countries. I see around me symptoms that this may become a reality. One of the them is the efforts the Spanish PM is making for when he becomes President of the EU to set up once and for ever the State of Palestine.
It intrigues me that this is so and I wonder what more concessions will be made to the State of Israel that will stop the situation of permanent conflict in the Zone. How the Palestinians will be subdued to the more powerful neighbour state in exchange for the cease of persecutions and other excruciating pains the Israelis are inflicting on the Palestinians. Israel has not been able to do away with the resident Palestinians, much that it has done to the effect, so it seems the only solution that will be sought is to create what I may call a satellite state vassal to the Great Israel.
I am afraid the Great Israel is already on its way to be constituted, this time without any more inconveniences to the Israelis.
January 29, 2009
Greeks have rang the bell. People start getting unrest from what they suffer and from what they hear. Is it possible that a revolution arises from all this?
As we all know revolutions have been the consequence of situations similar to that we are experiencing these days, but I wonder whether the revolution that might come out of this one would be in the benefit of people. This time it may not be so. This time it might lead the world to a tighter control of everything. This time it might be a revolution of the top brass.
We can see how the police forces of each and every country are organised to fight any “insurgencies”, how the armies have on many occasions reacted when it has been shouted that the integrity of a country is under threat by outer or inner forces. Those forces have at all times reacted following the orders of the constituted power, but this constituted power is really very far from the so much alleged Democracy we should be enjoying.
We have been under the spell of a so-called terrorism, people fear everything from their own security to global threats both human and environmental. Fear is the word nowadays that is helping the leaders of the world’s countries to rule.
The world has not changed it continues to be the same world it was in the Middle Ages, the power of the strong and few prevailing over the weaker and many. The human condition at its best. And this time the West does not need any religions to cooperate.
I am very much afraid all this will turn out to be a new step towards a harsher control of us all, via money, mortgages, eventually poverty.
May I be wrong!
August 1, 2007
Michael has asked me to post this comment here and I oblige:
Gordon Brown on his recent visit to the USA to pay homage to Bush said that Britain and the USA has shared values. He is correct of course, unfortunately, Britain is very much tied to the failure or success of the USA, Blair made that choice when he involved Britain in the illegal invasion of Iraq instead of moving closer to both Germany and France which had the good sense to oppose it and not to get involved. The Poodle of course is still happily wagging his tail, Bush managed to get him a highly paid job masquerading as a “Peace Envoy” for the Middle East.
But let’s not fool ourselves, there’s a war raging right now but I’m not referring to either Iraq or Afghanistan, although both are a direct consequence of the real battle that is taking place and the reason British soldiers are dying. The war I’m referring to is the attempted preservation of the United States dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which the USA hoped, would be used for all oil transactions. At one time every country that purchased oil from OPEC had to pay in U.S. dollars.
This enormously increased the demand for the floating dollar. Oil importing countries were faced with the problem of how to earn or borrow dollars to pay for their oil. OPEC oil countries were soon overflowing with oil dollars. Most of these oil dollars ended up in accounts in London and New York banks, but that’s changing.
It’s a battle, which in reality is already lost, the first shots actually came from that “Arch Villain” Saddam Hussian, an act which eventually led to his own death, because in November 2000 he exchanged $10 billion dollars to Euros and also started selling oil in Euros.
It is no coincidence of course that a new “Arch Villain” in our lives, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, has declared that he will accept payment for oil in any currency. It’s no coincidence that Russia is also slowly being added to the “ Axis of Evil” and that China will surely follow. China currently holds over $1 trillion as a part of their reserves but have indicated that they are going to move some of that and also reduce their monthly investment of US$ back into the US economy. It’s not a coincidence that over a year ago the US Treasury stopped issuing a report (M3) concerning money supply, because the bottom line is that the US$ is slowly becoming a currency backed by not gold or oil, but printing presses.
Since 2003 the US$ has fallen by 23% against the Euro and has fallen against all other major currencies, not surprising at all when you consider the fact that the USA is haemorrhaging money to the tune of $60 billion a month in regards to their trade deficit. A deficit that refuses to improve despite the fact that in theory US exports should be cheaper. But how much is it being affected by the fact that the USA has become the most distrusted nation in the word and that’s not just my view but also the results of many opinion polls. Investment of surplus dollars by countries such as China, Russia and the OPEC countries is falling sharply and is hardly surprising, it’s a little like asking someone to invest with a 3% interest return with 8% account charges,
The future seems uncertain in regards to the real war, which is taking place, not in relation to who the eventual victor will be, but in regards to how desperate the USA will become, and what final throws of the dice will take place.
Yes of course we have “shared values” which include bringing death and destruction all over the world simply for economic reasons, although I have to say it’s a shame those shared values didn’t end in 1776 when a group of terrorist insurgents declared independence.
May 20, 2007
There has been an exchange of thoughts over at 1loneranger’s blog
between Anticant and myself that has made me write this new post.
It is known by all of us that democratic styles emerged from oppressive regimes, unions were formed in reaction to ultra-capitalist attitudes and the pseudo-democratic system was set up almost everywhere in the world. And it all came to happen because the peoples of our part of the world were subjugated by a few .
When democracy became the most praised system of government, it was done so by authors at the beginning of it all, but in actual fact I am starting to believe that Democracy is another weapon in the hands of those who have always controlled the fate of the Earth. In actual fact if you look carefully into it you will no doubt observe that Democracy divides instead of uniting. Political parties whose leaders are never chosen by their affiliates but imposed on them by their top brass who in turn have been “advised” to take them by others higher up. And this chain originated by the power and need of money.
The system of proposing a trio of persons for a particular important post is rife everywhere, the three that are presented for consideration have previously received the approval of those who are “really” interested in the ruling of that particular country where the particular post is open for a replacement. The media take care of the rest.
Then another political party does the same with its rank and file. And…there! you have the two candidates – or more – opposing each other – that is completely divided and antagonistically rivals – throwing at each other all the worst epithets and disqualifications, libels and slanders, truths and lies that may be conceived by a human mind. In sum the onset of a deeper division and antagonism among their followers. Among almost all the inhabitants of that particular country.
Which, it will not escape you, is another form of control, of dictatorship. No matter how much you shout – it was proved with the Iraq war – what has been decided up there will be carried out.
What has made people to unite is nothing else than a common sense of oppression. It did with unions – which later on were decaffed, too, by the diversification that took place when different activities started to create new unions -; and it does today with political parties. People have forgotten that there is a common interest in that Democracy be applied to please us all, not to divide us all. We must not yield to the temptations offered by those who can tempt us and which normally lead us to separate ourselves in the main body of the electorate.
Ideologies have emerged that have also been suppressed, Marxism and Communism are examples of this in our ultra-capitalist world, because those who had the obligation to uphold them did not want or could not make that this happened. Once Communism became “conservative” in the USSR it also became oppressive giving way to the present ultra-capitalist ruling the Russian Federation now exhibits. Long standing regimes give way to protests among people and therefore to changes. The concept of ruling will nevertheless be always prevalent. China is another example of what I say.
This situation leaves me with some questions :
1. Is it necessary for Democracy to work properly that a dictatorial regime be previously established in a country? You know reaction to oppression.
2. How can people uphold the democratic system once it has been attained.
3. Is it necessary that people go through a situation of oppression for them to realise that attaining Democracy – being important as it is – is as much important as upholding it? I mean does upholding Democracy need random periods of absolutism?
4. What must be done for us to uphold that democracy we enjoy in much better conditions than there exist at the present time?
May 3, 2007
A new post has been opened at 1loneranger’s blog which we think should be the object of contributions from our friends. It is a question of discerning which system of government is more convenient to the interests of the public in general and which steps should be taken to the consecution of that target.
I recommend the reading of these ideas at 1loneranger’s whose link is
I am certain that many excellent ideas from our friends will eventually get us to reach the most adequate conclusions to the topic.
March 31, 2007
From the Greek: Ploutos = wealth + kratia = power. In day-to-day terms, Rule By The Rich.
A tour de force between the Socialist government and the opposition Partido Popular (Right Wing) is taking place these days in Spain regarding the purchase of the energy Company ENDESA and a Public Purchase Offer (PPO) presented by the multinational corporation E.ON, which is apparently supported by the opposition party, and another PPO from the multinational corporation ENEL together with the Spanish Building Company ACCIONA which, also apparently, have the sympathies of the government. I am not going to deal here with the technicalities of both offers nor am I going to step into, figuratively speaking, the positions held by both opposition and government, although my inclinations tend to be more favourable to the government’s.
I am going to deal here about my every day firmer conviction that the world is not ruled by political parties, be them democratic or not, nor is it ruled by the people in democratic terms. I firmly believe that the world is ruled by the rich people through a system which I would like to name Corporatocracy. I do not think I am coining any new term because I am sure many people in the world think like I do.
In the epoch of the last dictatorship the energy companies in Spain were owned by the state which controlled them through a sort of state holding : the Instituto Nacional de Industria (the National Institute of Industry). When the democracy(?) appeared in Spain after the dictator’s death, there were very important changes in the economic panorama, and little by little, with the shy opposition from the unions, the big companies changed hands from public to private, which was called privatisation.
It may not escape to anybody’s comprehension that the energy industry holds one of the safest positions in the world’s economy, particularly in the developed countries. Nothing can be done in terms of economy without the active intervention of energy, and it is in the energy sector which the avid eyes of those thinking with their purses stare continuously.
The offer presented by E.ON has been advised (?) by the following financial advisors:
BNP Parisbas S.A. – Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. – Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch –
J.P. Morgan Plc – Lehman Brothers (Europe) Ltd. – Merryll Lynch Capital Markets España S.A. –
You may find details about these companies in http://en.wikipedia.org because given that including in any post more than one link may make me the victim of cyber hackers I am not going to oblige them by doing so. In any case in future comments I’ll be pleased to include more links that are convenient to the issue under analysis.
I think it was Richard who suggested somewhere else that without the energy suppliers we would have nothing to do, and I think he was right. They have so much power, if you think carefully about it, that I would not be able to write these simple ideas today if I do not pay them their bill every two months. The energy suppliers are fundamental for everything: house building, car making, domestic appliances, clothes, shoes, combs, pins, post stamps, etc, etc., weapons of all kinds, aircraft, ships, nukes, you name it!
And I ask at this point: do any of you believe that with these assets and the political system that rules all of us is there anyone that dares to challenge the power of an Energy Corporation?
And in practical terms, although these corporations are ruled by a wealthy elite aided by super-intelligent persons who are not permitted to wholly integrate in their social layer, the public in general with money to participate in the property of those corporations by simply buying their shares in the Stock Exchanges, also benefit from the initiatives which at all times are directed to earn more money. Only that the latter cannot effectively participate in the decisions that are concocted by the real owners of the entities, you know those holding the majority of the shares.
In any case these extra shareholders are in no way a cause of worry to the top brass of the corporations.
Nor, of course, are they a majority among the public in general of whom they are members.
And believe it or not, the SEC has also something to do with these Public Purchase Offers. Do you know what the SEC is?
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In the first comment to this post, I will give you a link to check this information about the SEC.
March 6, 2007
None such! I have been reading around on the net how many free thinkers believe there is a New World Order under way, and I am afraid this is another way to delude us into the same giant lie we have been fed with since the end of World War II. The New World Order, in my opinion, was instituted sharp on the end of the talks held by the various world powers that won that war. There have been changes, apparent substantial changes, but the run of the world is being kept inside the canons of a dictatorship of Capitalism.
The last news that leads me to believing this is what I hear about China’s giving its countryside inhabitants such a quantity of perks that that would ensure a pacific transition from Communism “a la Chinoise” to Capitalism “a la Chinoise”. Unbelievable, isn’t it?
Russia took the same way with Gorbachev and we now see how Russian societal levels have taken a new look and every day the differences between rich and poor are more evident, as happens in the US where there officially exist 37 million poor, nothing more nothing less than about 17% of the population.
If there were to be a New World Order and it were going to be imposed by the “Old” World Order… then I’d better not think about it, because our lives and our minds would be subjected to unthinkable levels of tyranny. We would be reduced to mere pawns without a will whose only mission should be to act as tools of the New Ultra-Capitalist Dictatorship.
China has realised, as did Russia, that the best system to run a country is the Capitalist system, and I think that for the time being it is. What is not acceptable is ultra-capitalism, that all thoughts and ideas be exploited to enhance the powers of Capital, instead of being used to improve our living conditions and our education so as to achieve for ourselves what is intrinsec in our lives : freedom in all its expressions.
Have we ever realised that without us Capitalism would not exist? Have we ever realised that we also think, that we also have ideas, that we do not need anybody else’s ideas to survive?
As the world goes I can only see two kinds of protagonists: those who are high up and control everything from birth issues to death rates and the rest of us.
And as Merkin says, we still have this means of communication, let’s use it as long as we are allowed to.
Which is becoming a clamour on the internet.
We can also change the World Order.
February 23, 2007
Perhaps the most pathetic news of the week was Tony Blair claiming total innocence for the death and destruction taking place daily in Iraq. We could of course believe him if it were not for the obvious facts that sectarian violence or terrorism was not taking place in Iraq before the illegal invasion, or the fact that weapons of mass destruction didn’t exist in Iraq before depleted uranium, white phosphorus, a variant of napalm and cluster bombs had been imported by the USA and the UK.
I think most reasonable people now accept that the reason for the Iraqi invasion were all oil related and this has been confirmed recently with the announcement that a new law has been passed by the American controlled Iraqi puppet government that will ensure that at least a half of Iraqi oil revenues over the next 15 to 30 years will go to American or British oil companies, whereas before the Iraqi oil industry was state owned. That’s despite the fact that if ever there was a time when Iraq needed oil revenue it is now.
One has to ask the question as to if the USA/UK wanted to avoid sectarian violence why did they allow organisations with links to terrorism immediately return to Iraq after the illegal invasion? Organisations like the Iraqi National Congress headed by convicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi, who was immediately put in control of the rebuilding of Iraq, we now know of course that billions of dollars of money from the “oil for food” account go unaccounted for.
Secondly the “ Iraqi National Accord” led by Iyad Allwai with a criminal past. The Badr Brigade, the armed wing of the Da’awa/SCIRI religious ‘parties’ led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Nuri al-Maliki. The Kurdish militia (the Peshmerga) led by opportunist warlords, which were trained and armed by the U.S and Israel.
It’s almost as though sectarian violence in Iraq suits the occupiers, which I suspect brings us back to “Oil”.
Now of course Blair talks about withdrawing a few UK troops from Iraq, I presume that this is in readiness for the next illegal adventure by the real axis of evil in attacking Iran. The USA has already made it clear that one of two excuses could be made for the next act of genocide, either proof that Iran is providing the Iraqi resistance with arms or that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Just this week we saw a poor attempt by the USA to prove that the Iran government is providing arms when they released photographs of these supposedly Iranian arms, included was a picture of a 81mm mortar shell, which they don’t even produce, the shell inscribed with english words and the date “2006” instead of “1427” as you would expect. The credibility of the Bush Government diminishes as each day passes.
On the other hand the Iranian government has produced real evidence that terrorism in Iran is being is being encouraged and funded by the west. Since the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain, Iran has experienced an increasing number of explosions (or “terrorist attacks”) in Iranian border provinces and areas.
Obviously using the “American” version of International Law this evidence would authorise Iran to launch attacks against the USA and American forces. But then again Iran isn’t a militaristic nation and hasn’t attacked other nations for centuries.
The second possible excuse is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and this is despite the obvious facts that Iran doesn’t have the facilities to develop them and has never even expressed a wish to have any. Indeed Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency said this week that Iran could be 10 years away from producing a nuclear weapon even if they started today.
So yes I do believe that Blair is responsible for what we see in Iraq today along with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Feith, Straw, Hoon, Perle, Abrams and Wolfowitz and others.
February 19, 2007
Who chose that name, United Nations? There was a time when what existed was the Society of Nations, another name that implies unity, but in actual fact neither name essentially reflects the actual situation in the international organism.
Apart from having been so far an instrument at the complete disposal of just 5 countries : veto-holding China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States; it has also been all the time a nest of conspiracies, a waste of money and a useless tool for all those countries with no right to veto.
Should the United Nations be the international forum where all nations have the chance of exposing their divergences, their quarrels, their predicaments, with no other option than awaiting in fundamental cases for the unison agreement in the Security Council whose power is really in the hands of those five countries I mention above?.
Or rather should the U.N. be the mother organisation where all elements concerning world peace, development, poverty, education, health, etc would be housed?
Peace is the most fundamental of all reasons for the U.N. to be, but this peace should be controlled in the proper way, not as it is now in cases of resolutions which have to be sifted in the S.C. (Security Council) with real chances of being vetoed as has happened on multiple occasions as in the case of Israel, or in the cases of Serbia, or Iran, or Iraq, where no real unanimity was achieved to solve the problems once and for ever?
Development is also a fundamental part of the mission the U.N. should have, development and eradication of poverty should be a continuous target and the implementation of this development supported by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which would also be inside the organisation with full responsibility for the Secretary General as Head of the Organisation. Today we all know how these organisations work and at the call and beck of whom they work.
The right to veto is one of the most flagrant violations of the democratic principles, principles which are so much boasted by countries that do not respect them.
Education. Why the world cannot have a unitary education with the same subjects for everybody, an education that encompasses all aspects of our lives and teaches each and every one of us how to consider the world, democracy, corruption, etc in its proper terms, is something that has never been explained and something that should be addressed with a maximum priority.
Health. The enormous profits that Pharmaceuticals return to the big corporations of that sector are the consequence of exploitation of our health by them. Prices of the medicines are, as everybody knows, extremely costly to the Health Services of all countries let alone the pockets of citizens who have not been covered by the benefits of sanitary services. The excellent services provided by the professionals of Medicine are nothing if those medicines they prescribe are too dear and if the said corporations are not duly controlled and their profits duly dealt with by the Fisc. I wonder whether taxes on those profits could help some countries give sanitary coverage to their citizens.
Against my will this post has become too lengthy and I am not for long posts when readers’ time is one of the most important factors to be taken into account nowadays.
There is much more that can be said about the U.N. but my last commentary in this post is just to sum it all up in few words: It is a completely ineffective organisation whose running costs us – tax payers – so much that the money employed in it could serve to give remedy to many ills that are overwhelming the world.
February 17, 2007
Shameful! How is it possible that people who have been elected by us attend the sessions in parliament, sit down, read the papers and only work to cheer their leader in the chamber, who may happen to be the representative of another electoral district, and push the buttom when they have to vote? And for that task we pay them!
It is only their party’s politics that prevail, irrespective of what is convenient to the electoral district of each parliamentarian. And the one representative we elect shuts up and does not even budge in her/his seat.
If we are fortunate enough that our representative is at the same time a spokesperson for a particular area in the party, that fortune is rapidly thrown into the dust bin because at all moments he will voice the party’s views, not ours.
I wonder why all the persons in a parliament do not enjoy the same prerrogatives and why they cannot speak at a given moment during the session, thus behaving as their electors would like them to. The party they belong to are not aware what our real needs are, it is presumed our representative does, although at times it happens the latter may have come from a different town or any place where our worries are not known.
It seems today I have focussed my attention on our parliamentarians, the question is that too many ills that affect us are the responsibility of those who are there to solve them.
Is it not then clear that this system of political parties is really a spoke in the wheels of our democracy?