Monday, 29 April 2013

Wednesday, 17 April 2013


Must Britain now Dig for Survival?

Warnings of world food shortages are gathering pace and the horsemeat scandal has highlighted the provenance of food 

As a nation that imports 40 per cent of all the food we consume, Britain is in a precarious position if the supply chain breaks down due to poor harvests, rising international costs and competition from other countries clamouring to buy up dwindling stocks.
It was revealed earlier this month that our wet winter and freezing spring have led to the poorest potato yield (down 20 per cent on last year) since the drought of 1976. Jersey Royals will be at least a month late because of tardy planting due to adverse weather, and the price of a 2.5kg bag of white potatoes has risen by 43 per cent – up from £1.35 this time last year to £1.93. The carrot harvest has been hit by the waterlogged ground, peas and tomatoes have been affected by low levels of light, and Britain will also need to import more wheat than it exports for the first time in a decade.
It’s a bleak picture when the price of the weekly shop is already steadily rising. All the same, can it really be true, as agriculture minister David Heath claims, that unless householders start Digging for Victory (Survival, even), we will face empty shelves as supermarkets struggle to import enough food to feed us? Alarmingly, it would appear so.

“I am delighted that, at long last, a minister has been upfront about what is a very serious issue, because we urgently need to get our act together, but shame on the Government for dragging its feet,” is the vehement response from Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at City University, London.

“The last Labour government, of which I was no fan, belatedly realised the same thing in 2007-08, when food prices rocketed, and they ended up with a policy called Food 2030, published in 2010. But the Coalition came in and abolished it, so we’ve lost three years.”

According to Prof Lang, all assessments of the world’s food systems reach the same damning conclusion, namely that “a big crunch is coming”. Falling oil reserves – needed for fertilisers – climate change and a soaring global population are coming together in a perfect storm.

“The only arguments are over what to do about it,” he says. “Some say that new technology will address the problem, but I’m one of those who say it can’t, because we would need four planet Earths to eat like the Americans and two to three planet Earths for us all to eat like Northern Europeans. What we need to do is radically change our diets.”

At present, 50 per cent of all grain grown in the world is fed to livestock. A dramatic reduction in meat and dairy consumption would free scarce land and resources for plant cultivation.

Consumer concerns over buying genetically modified foods may be swept aside by the need for large-scale production, and indeed this Government plans to lobby other European Union countries to lift current restrictions on the use of GM technology.

But a key factor in securing our food supply lies, quite literally, in growing our own, and public figures are leading by example. When David Cameron was elected Prime Minister, he and his wife took on the vegetable garden planted in Downing Street by former residents Gordon and Sarah Brown. Their green-fingered foray was made with the encouragement of the American First Lady. When she arrived in Washington, one of Michelle Obama’s first projects was to dig a vegetable patch on the White House lawn, so that she could invite local children along to sow and harvest vegetables.

“We are all down in the dirt,” wrote the novice gardener in her book American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America. “There is no hierarchy, no boss and no winner. It is almost impossible to mess up and we make it clear that gardening isn’t about perfection. It is, however, about re-establishing a seasonality to our diets and would certainly put paid to the environmental scourge of air‑freighted strawberries in December and Peruvian asparagus in March.”

It may come as a shock to learn that a National Farmers’ Union report shows tomatoes, cucumbers and spring onions are among several British fruit and vegetable crops that have been labelled “endangered” due to a significant fall in national self-sufficiency over the past 10 years. A further four crops – Brussels sprouts, lettuce, leeks and cauliflower – are “at risk” due to a steady shrinkage in production and consumption.

“This is not about growers versus retailers, but we have to bring an end to damaging activities or risk losing huge swathes of British horticultural production,” says NFU deputy president and potato grower Meurig Raymond. “Some retailers are making efforts to invest in the future of British farming, but our figures show that all too often this is being undone in pursuit of higher profits.
 “Unless action is taken now, we could see less home-grown fruit and vegetables on supermarket shelves. This will mean more imported produce, less choice and ultimately higher food prices due to a lack of investment in farming.”

Elsewhere, the Royal Horticultural Society’s Britain in Bloom movement has just launched “Edible Britain”, which promotes the idea of growing herbs, salads and fruits in outdoor spaces: chives in window boxes, lettuce in tubs and strawberries and tomatoes in hanging baskets.

Throughout this month Britain in Bloom will be giving away 30,000 packets of seeds to create more than 1,000 public edible gardens nationwide. The scheme, which has been given the backing of Michelin-starred chef Raymond Blanc, is part of a drive to get people in general and children in particular to re-engage with fresh food. And according to research carried out by Homebase, 62 per cent of British children want to be taught more about gardening at school.
“It’s really important to get children involved in gardening and learn that fruit and vegetables don’t come wrapped in polythene,” says Andrea Van Sittart, head of regional development at the RHS. “And 17,000 schools signed up to our gardening in schools programme.”

When you grow something, you gain a different perspective on its value. In recent years the National Trust, once associated with the preservation in aspic of stately piles and ornamental gardens, has diversified into the cultivation of our horticultural heritage by creating 1,000 allotments, where communities can grow fruit and vegetables. The economic downturn has made a considerable impact, according to the National Allotment Society, with 150,000 people on waiting lists for council allotments and waiting times in London as long as 40 years. Figures released last December showed that the share of all fruit and veg grown in allotments and gardens rose from 2.9 per cent to 5 per cent between 2008 and 2011, an increase of 70 per cent.

But with the best will and the best weather in the world, it’s simply not possible for the average family to become self-sufficient in fruit and vegetables. Alex Mitchell, author of Edible Gardener, admits that the Surbiton idyll of pigs and chickens and home-brewed wine portrayed by Richard Briers and Felicity Kendall is far from the reach of most people.

“You can’t really grow all your own food unless you have about half an acre or more,” says Mitchell. “But you can cultivate little bits and pieces that make you feel more connected to the seasons and raise your awareness of the natural world around you. That, in turn, will make you think before you buy fruit that’s been flown half-way round the world and might change your shopping habits to support local growers more.”

But she does believe it’s possible to become self-sufficient in herbs, salad, garlic and even chillies. “Growing your own food is wonderfully life-affirming,” she says. “It also makes you feel as though you’ve won back a little control from the big supermarkets, and it’s resourceful.”

The horsemeat furore has heightened interest in the provenance of our food; buying traceable British produce allays concerns and dovetails with the calls to reduce our dependence on imports.

Turning the herbaceous border over to rhubarb and spring onions may not constitute digging for victory per se. But perhaps sowing and growing my children’s supper (with plum crumble for afters) could constitute an important milestone along the way.

Set aside  farming land taken out of food production, the building of 100s of 1000s of new homes on Farmland/countryside, massive immigration problems not to mention the disappearance of BEES doesn't bode well for a country who has to import over 40% of its food.

If you have a Garden it wouldn't be such a bad idea to start growing your own food as prices will start to escalate rapidly over the next 6 mths.

I'm sure you all know how little your getting for your money when you go to the supermarkets compared to 2 yrs ago.

And what will the LibLabCon do about this?

NOWT, ZILCH, NADA as per usual.


Tuesday, 16 April 2013

Margaret Thatcher: the most useful of idiots

With his mixture of vaulting intellectual ambition and howling mediocrity of mind, Lenin is the MaGonagal of  philosophers. (Connoisseurs of intellectual incompetence and pretension should browse through Lenin’s ‘Materialism and  Empririo-Criticism’ for an especial treat). Nonetheless,  like Hitler, the man possessed a certain low animal cunning  and a complete absence of moral restraint, which qualities  permitted him to make a few acute psychological and  sociological observations. Amongst these is the concept of  the useful idiot.
For Lenin this was the role to be played primarily by  simpleminded bourgeois dupes who unwittingly aided the  movement towards the proletarian revolution, a revolution  utterly antipathetic to the ideals and aspiration of the simpleminded bourgeois dupes. But the concept is of general  political utility. The useful idiot is any person who acts  in a way which unwittingly promotes political interests  which are opposed to his own political ideals.
The best of all useful idiots are those in positions of the  greatest political advantage, both because they have power  and their  propensity to be  deluded by their egos  into believing that they are utterly beyond manipulation or mistaken in their policies. They also display a serious want of  understanding of the probable consequences of their actions.
It was this combination of circumstances and mentality which  made Margaret Thatcher so potent a useful idiot in the  liberal internationalist cause.  As I wrote that last sentence, I saw rising up before me the  opposing hordes of her admirers and haters, singularly  united in a ghastly embrace of disbelief. Was she not the  Iron Lady, the Hammer of the Left, the destroyer of union  power, the slayer of the socialist dragon? Did she not speak  of turning back the tide of immigrants? Was she not the rock  from which the European Leviathan rebounded? Did she not  ensure that Britain was respected in the world as she had not  been since Suez? Was she not a mover and shaker in the nationalist cause?
In her own rhetorical world Mrs T was all of these things,  a veritable Gloriana who enchanted some and banally persuaded  many more, but in practical achievement she was none of them. This discrepancy between fact and fancy made her an  extraordinarily potent tool for the soldiers of the  ascendant ideology of the post-war period, the sordid bigotry  that is liberal internationalism.
The hard truth is that she allowed the primary British  political corruptions of the post war period – immigration,  multiculturalism, “progressive” education, the social work  circus,  internationalism, the attachment to Europe – to not  merely continue but grow vastly in scope during her period in  power.
A harsh judgement? Well, at the end of her premiership what  did Britain have to show for her vaunted patriotism, her wish  to maintain Britain’s independence, her desire to drive back the state, her promise to end mass immigration? Precious  little is the answer.
Her enthusiastic promotion of the Single European Act, which  she ruthlessly drove through Parliament, allowed the  Eurofederalists to greatly advance their cause under the  guise of acting to produce a single market; her “triumph” in  reducing our subsidy to Europe left us paying  several billion  a year to our European competitors whilst France paid next to  nothing; our fishermen were sold down the river; farmers  placed in the absurd position of not being allowed to produce  even enough milk for British requirements; actual (as opposed to official) immigration increased; that monument to liberal  bigotry, the Race Relations Act was untouched, the  educational vandals were not only allowed to sabotage every  serious attempt to overturn the progressive disaster, but  were granted a great triumph in the ending of ‘O’ levels, a  liberal bigot success amplified by the contemptible bleating  of successive education secretaries that “rising examination  success means rising standards”; foreign aid continued to be  paid as an unforced Dangeld extracted from an unwilling electorate; major and strategically  important industries either ceased to be serious competitors  or ended in foreign hands; the armed forces were cut  suicidally; the cost of the Welfare State and local  government rose massively whilst the service provided both  declined and Ulster was sold down the river with the Anglo Irish Agreement. Most generally damaging, she promoted  internationalism through her fanatic pursuit of free trade.
At all points Britain was weakened as a nation. Such were  the fruits of more than a decade of Thatcherism. Even those things which are most emblematic of her - privatisation, the sale of council houses and the  subjection of the unions – have had effects which are  contrary to those intended. Privatisation merely accelerated  the loss of control which free trade engendered. We may as customers celebrate the liberation of British Telecom and BA,  but is it such a wonderful thing to have no major car  producer or shipbuilder? The trouble with the privatisation of major industries, which may be greatly reduced, go out  of business or be taken over by foreign buyers, is that it  ignores strategic and social welfare questions. Ditto free trade generally. Both assume that the world, or at least the  parts which contain our major trading partners , will remain  peaceful, stable and well disposed towards Britain for ever, an absurd assumption.
Margaret Thatcher also engaged in behaviour which led to a corruption of public life which undermined and continues to  undermine her intended ends. Politicians should always think of what precedent they are setting when they act for bad  precedents will be invariably seized upon by later  governments. She  consistently failed to  address this concern. Take her attitude to privatisation and  the unions. In the former case she displayed a contempt for  ownership: in the latter she engaged in authoritarian actions  which were simply inappropriate to a democracy. Such legally  and politically cavalier behaviour has undoubtedly  influenced Blair and New Labour, vide the contempt with which  parliament is now treated, constitutional change wrought and incessant restrictions on liberty enacted.
There is a profound ethical question connected to  privatisation which was never properly answered by Tories:  what right does the state have to dispose by sale of assets  which are held in trust on behalf of the general public and  whose existence has been in large part guaranteed by  taxpayer’s money? This is a question which should be as  readily asked by a conservative as by a socialist for it  touches upon a central point of democratic political  morality, the custodianship of public property. The same ends  - the diminution of the state and the freeing of the public from seemingly perpetual losses – could have been achieved by  an equitable distribution of shares free of charge to the  general public. This would have had, from a Thatcherite standpoint, the additional benefit of greatly increasing share ownership. By selling that which the government did not  meaningfully own, she engaged in behaviour which if it had  been engaged in by any private individual or company would  have been described as fraud or theft.
The breaking of union power was overdone. As someone who is  old enough to remember the Wilson, Heath and Callaghan years,  I have no illusion of exactly how awful the unions were when they had real power. But her means of breaking their abusive  ways, particularly during the miners’ strike, were simply  inappropriate in a supposed democracy. Passing laws restricting picketing and making unions liable for material  losses suffered when they broke the rules were one thing: the  using of the police in an unambiguously authoritarian manner in circumstances of dubious legality such as the blanket  prevention of free movement of miners, quite another.
The Falklands War displays another side of her weakness in  matching actions to rhetoric. Admirable as the military action was, the terrible truth is that the war need never  have been fought if the government had taken their intelligence reports seriously and retained a naval presence  in the area. The lesson went unlearnt, for within a few years  of the recovery of the Falklands, her government massively  reduced defence expenditure.
But what of her clients, the Liberal Ascendency? Would they  not be dismayed by much of what she did? Well, by the time  Margaret Thatcher came to power liberals had really lost whatever interest they had ever had in state ownership or the  genuine improvement of the worker’s lot. What they really  cared about was promoting their internationalist vision and  doctrine of spurious natural rights. They had new clients;  the vast numbers of coloured immigrants and their children,  women, homosexuals, the disabled. In short, all those who were dysfunctional, or could be made to feel dysfunctional, in terms of British society. They had new areas of power and  distinction, social work, education, the civil service ,the  mass media to which they added, after securing the  ideological high ground, the ancient delights of politics.
Although the liberal left distrusted and hated Margaret  Thatcher (and did not understand at the time how effective  her commitment to free trade was in promoting  internationalism), they nonetheless had the belief throughout  her time in office that Britain’s involvement in the EU and  the Liberal Ascendency’s control of education, the media, the  civil service and bodies such as the Commission for Racial  Equality would thwart those of her plans which were most dangerous and obnoxious to the liberal.
Margaret Thatcher greatly added to this wall of opposition  by her choice of ministers. Think of her major cabinet  appointments. She ensured that the Foreign Office remained in the hands of men (Howe and Hurd) who were both ardent  Europhiles and willing tools of the FO Quisling culture, the  Chancellorship was entrusted to first Howe and then Lawson who was also firmly committed to Europe. The Home Office sat  in the laps of the social liberals Whitelaw, Hurd and Baker,  Education was given to Baker and Clarke. Those appointments  alone ensured that little would be done to attack the things  which liberals held sacred, for they were men who broadly  shared the liberal values and who were opposed to  Thatcherite policies other than those on the economy, which  of course was the one Thatcherite policy guaranteed to  assist liberal internationalism. By the end, she was so weak  that she was unable to prevent the effective sacking of a  favourite cabinet minister, Nicholas Ridley, by the German  Chancellor.
The constant cry of Margaret Thatcher after  she left office  is that she did not understand the consequences of her acts.  Of course she does not put it in that way, but that is what  it amounts to. She blames Brussels and the Foreign Office for  the unwelcome consequences of the Single European Act. She  readily admits that this minister or that in her government proved unreliable or treacherous, but does not conclude that  her judgement in choosing them was at fault. She blames the  Foreign Office for the Falklands War. But nowhere does she acknowledge her fault.
In her heart of hearts, has  the second longest serving and most  ideological prime minister in modern British history ever comprehended, however imperfectly, that she was a prime mover  in the Liberal Internationalist cause? I doubt it, because  self deception is at the heart of what makes a useful idiot.

Hat Tip

Living In A Madhouse Blog


Is it corporate fascism yet?


The financial crisis that washed across the globe in 2008 is just the latest economic disaster to hit the American people. The fall of too-big-to-fail banks and companies marked the latest chapter of a tragedy that has been unfolding for years.

Franklin D. Roosevelt once warned that democracy will never be safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. If such a scenario arose, Roosevelt said, that would be the very definition of fascism.

With the rise of the lawless transnational corporations, an increasing number of Americans are becoming mere spectators to this winner-take-all economy. At the same time, workers are simply too afraid of risking their positions by demanding democratic representation in their myriad workplaces. Corporations play on the fear factor while enforcing the most egregious labor practices.
Combine this with the vast political powers that corporations have acquired and you have a recipe for a national disaster.

As Francis Fukuyama pointed out, “An American chief executive exercises authoritarian powers of which a politician could only dream,” and is held accountable in his actions only to a board of directors, which enables him to “hire, fire, make mergers or divest divisions at will.” Indeed, the captains of big business are able to act with total impunity, and this has created a veritable reign of fear throughout every sector of the economy.

For the American people, out-of-control corporate power – corporate fascism, if you will – has eroded their standard of living, to say nothing about the standard of democracy.
No matter how the spin doctors twist US labor data over the past forty years, it is nearly impossible to find a silver lining. As the Financial Times summed up the grim reality: “The annual incomes of the bottom 90 percent of US families have been essentially flat since 1973—having risen only by 10 percent in real terms over the past 37 years”—despite the rise in two-income homes. Over the same period, however, the incomes of the top 1 percent have smashed through the roof.

Consider the fantastic growth of billionaires in the United States over a very short time. When Forbes magazine launched its ranking of the nation’s ultra wealthy in 1982, the “price of admission” into this prestigious club was just $75 million of net worth. Today, as Forbes reported, even after adjusting for inflation, “this year’s entry fee ($1.1 billion) is roughly six times what it was 30 years ago.

Here is a look at the residents of the Forbes 400 penthouse, otherwise known as the 1 percent: “The combined net worth of the 2012 class of the 400 richest Americans is $1.7 trillion, up from $1.5 trillion a year ago. The average net worth of a Forbes 400 member is a staggering $4.2 billion, up from $3.8 billion, and the highest ever, as two-thirds of the individuals added to their fortunes in the past year.”

Now compare those figures to 1982, when there were just 13 billionaires while the total worth of the 400 club was just $93 billion. Despite what the super rich wish to believe, this massive hoarding of wealth is working against the American people.

For those who have forgotten what the economic climate inside of the United States was like before the 2008 economic tsunami made landfall, consider the following. The Economist, quoting Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institute, reported that “between 1974 and 2004 median wages for men in their 30s, adjusted for inflation, fell by 12% from $40,000 to $35,000.”

The Wall Street Journal, calling this middle-class bloodletting “the lost decade,” reported: “The inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%.”

The article provided a candid comment by Nicholas Eberstadt, a political economist at the right leaning American Enterprise Institute: “It’s going to be a long, hard slog back to what most Americans think of as normalcy or prosperous times.” That dire prognosis may eventually prove to be overly optimistic since many economists believe the best days of the American economy are gone forever.

The hardest thing to accept about this fantastic reversal of fortune for so many American people is that much of the present pain and suffering was largely avoidable. It would have required self-restraint, political will, and very little sacrifice, but the bleeding of the American middle class was nothing less than a deliberate, premeditated crime.

As the Financial Times revealed, “the share of the US income that goes to workers as wages rather than to investors as profits…has fallen to its lowest level since records began after the Second World War.” The world’s most reputable business newspaper was forced to admit that “something strange and unprecedented is going on” inside the US economy.
Here comes the bloody kicker: “If wages were at their postwar average share of 63 percent, workers would earn an extra $740bn this year, about $5,000 per worker,” the FT article reveals. Labor’s slice of the income pie has decreased to 58 percent, a historic low that still has not hit bottom. This unprecedented disparity in wage distribution explains why the US economy is furiously spinning its wheels, while only the corporations seem to be advancing.

Meanwhile, labor is always one precarious step away from becoming road kill. “The decline in the US labor share, along with a shift of labor income towards higher earners, may be an important part of why the US economic recovery is so sluggish,” the article concludes. “Instead of hoarding labor and cutting prices to grab market share, companies are sacking workers, holding prices and choosing to buy back their own equity rather than make new investments.”

Clearly, the American corporate elite – now fully blessed with the political representation originally designed for We the People – is indulging itself to an all-you-can-eat smorgasbord at the salary trough, and with a void of democratic procedure inside the workplace, nobody is forcing them away from the table.

What the American worker desperately needs today is a separation of business from politics, similar to the way the world of politics was separated from the world of religion. He also needs democratic representation inside of the workplace.

“The mission of democratic statecraft…,” wrote Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. “is to give society a chance of controlling the energies let loose by science and technology. Democratic leadership is the art of fostering and managing innovation in the service of a free community.”

A person need not be a Marxist to understand a very simple universal truth: Without vibrant representation both in the workplace and at home, the individuals at the top of the corporate pyramid will exploit the people in the eternal quest for greater profit. At that point, with the corporate overlords in bed with our political representatives, and democratic procedure totally absent inside of the corporate fortress, fascist is the only way to define such a brutal system.


And the LibLabCon, Unions,  UAF etc are where?

In the pockets of the FASCIST CORPORATIONS that's where.

Nationalists at Wigan Patriot have been warning you for years that we are now living a TRUE FASCIST STATE.

Yet the Donkeys who are called the "ELECTORATE" keep voting for the FASCIST DICTATORS, too dumbed down or ignorant to care.

Thatcher (spit, spit pthwww) was the one who gave greed its reign and destroyed a homogenous society in the process of giving the British Silverware away away to Foreign Fascist Corporations (If you see Sid tell him).

If you want to end this and distribute wealth from those who have more than anyone could ever need or dream of then you have to vote for NATIONALIST PARTIES.

The BNP I'm sad to say isn't willing to work with other Nationalist Parties for the good of the Indigenous Population of Britain which means you should ignore them.

You have other choices, the main one being the new Nationalist Party that we have long been waiting for THE BRITISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
If your not willing to take a chance on them now then you might aswell wave goodbye to Britain and prepare for worse to come for you and your families in the FASCIST FUTURE being planned and implemented as we speak.

YOU are just another slave, when are you going to break the bonds that bind you ?


Saturday, 13 April 2013

TROLLING ALONG: If the conflicting data feel like a stream of dissonance, ask yourself why.

Ever since Moses came back down with Ten Commandments and claimed they were from God, it’s been difficult to get at the Truth. 

But the complexity and subtlety of contemporary disinformation make it well-nigh impossible to get anywhere near it. The Slog explains why this is happening, who’s doing it, and what they’re trying to achieve.

‘Eurozone output rose greater than expected in the month of February,” wrote Reuters this morning. By gum, one thinks, things might be looking up. And Reuters suggests such a thought might indeed be appropriate: the data, it reports, are ‘giving hope the currency bloc will return to growth this year’.

Except, of course, it’s complete bollocks. Almost all of it is energy production – because Europe just had one of the coldest winter/spring spells on record. What’s more, whereas German production is up 95, ClubMed’s is down….especially in Italy at -8%. Which, of course, simply exacerbates the problem the eurozone already already has. Overall, real factory production continued to fall compared to data from a year ago.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that ‘Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem said “everything is in place” for euro-area officials to sign off on a 10 billion-euro rescue for Cyprus’……the only snag being that Nicosia doesn’t agree: it thinks it needs more. Or does it? Lest we forget here, Cyprus’s contribution to its own rescue has risen from €7bn to €13bn. Cyprus isn’t as yet asking for anything from anyone, because it is rescuing itself, remember?

In fact, didn’t Cyprus decide to use its own gold to raise the new larger amount? No actually, it didn’t: it was told to by the Troika. And then this morning, Mario Draghi ordered the Cypriot government not to sack Panicos Demetriades, the central bank governor, over his handling of Cyprus’ worsening financial crisis.

Over his handling of the crisis? Wasn’t the confidence crisis set off by the Troika’s haircut idea? Nonononononono….that was Nicosia’s idea. Well, that is…er, after it turned up a week last Thursday and was told to find a way to cut 40% of depositor hair by the FinMin’s eurogroup.

OK fine, but at least Brussels is trying to sort out the mess, right? The Wall Street Journal ran a big piece today saying ‘Europe is embarking on a new attempt to pull its banks out of the molasses of its debt crisis, hoping an aggressive cleanup of toxic assets will get banks to lend again and kick-start its flailing economies.

The push is being led by several key officials in Brussels and Frankfurt, who want to see a new round of much-tougher stress tests before the European Central Bank becomes the euro zone’s main banking policeman next year, according to four European officials familiar with the talks. They are backed by the continent’s richer countries, including Germany, the Netherlands and Finland.’

Ah. This is a new one on me. Or rather, it isn’t: the same story was salted out all over the place on February 26th. Then it appeared again on March 18th. Now here it is yet again on April 12th. But it’s bullsh*t: I have yet to find anyone in a position to know who has seen or read anything about such a new stress test.

But nihil desperandum friends, because ‘EU’s Rehn Calls for Faster Banking Union’ wrote the WSJ yesterday. Ollie can call all he likes, but his calls rarely seem to be answered: the same story appeared last June at Reuters and in the New York Times. It’s cobblers: the pace remains that of a snail on Valium, because half the people supposed to be in the damn thing are insolvent anyway.

€ € € € € € € € € € € € € €

There are three factors at play in all this misreporting. First, it tends almost always to appear on mainstream American news sites. Second, it is represents almost nothing beyond some eurocrat’s wishful thinking. And third, in the eurozone theatre it follows an obvious pattern most of the time: the deliberate sowing of confusion.

Why is this? It’s simple really…and I’ve observed it so many times now, I will not countenance any of the ‘just a conspiracy theory’ tripe – if only because that sort of trollesque assertion is part of the same process.

These are the reasons it happens. First, the US is desperate to keep American investors calm about what’s happening in the eurozone. Second, most Americans are very badly informed about Europe. Third, all US news sites and stations are under enormous pressure to fill time and space with apparent ‘news’. Fourth, a helluva lot of journalists are lazy and superficial – especially econo-financial journalists. Fifth, Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt and Berlin are at loggerheads most of the time, and brief against each other 24/7. And finally, it suits the European Commission press room to run about carrying mirrors and trailing smoke: this creates controversy, disagreement, and multivariate interpretation….it provides the distraction and distortion to line up the deception.

Some fifteen months ago – well before the triumphant return of Barack O’Drama to the Oval Office was assured, I kept being told by American sources about professional troll swarms being employed by the White House to go into GOP sites and spread mayhem by attacking threaders, authors and each other.

It all sounded a bit far-fetched and paranoid to be honest: it proved to be anything but. It is in fact extremely sophisticated, and has since spread into almost every sphere of what gets ‘reported’ online.

Ever since being attacked here last year, I have to spend about half an hour a day monitoring new threaders, and checking their IP addresses. In the last eight months alone I have banned and spammed out a staggering 5,723 obvious plants either commercial or political.

One still misses a few of course – seasoned bloggers email me now and again to point them out. Sometimes I ban them too: sometimes I leave them in, string them along, even agree with them now and then.

After all, I don’t see why disinformation-spreading should be all one way.

The net effect is that nobody knows who to trust any more….and this too is entirely intentional. The Stasi in East Germany not only corrupted citizens by getting them to spy on neighbours or else…it benefitted massively from spreading distrust and suspicion….because that led to more ‘credible deniability’. (An invention of that nice Nixonian Mr Haldeman, by the way).

Nowhere is this pernicious practice of troll swarming more commonplace and obvious than in ClubMed – and especially in Greece. A lot of it is laughably amateurish: Turks calling themselves Demetriou or Maria turn up talking rubbish and barely able to spell, and Germanic-origin mercenaries thread complete tosh that gives away their ignorance of all things Hellenic. I do too occasionally, but that’s because I am ignorant about Greece: I love the country and its people, but I rely upon a small regiment of helpers to politely point out when I’ve written something culturally daft.

Just as annoying is the time I devote to checking the provenance of something given to me discreetly. One has to do that every time of course, but now the process has become ridiculous. Reports are falsified, newspaper dates doctored, Wikipedia entries altered….on and on it goes. And of course, that’s the idea: ‘better not write that, it may be a trap’. They slow you down, and make you cautious. I have been suckered twice since Christmas. It’s not good for morale, I can tell you.

Most of the Anglo-Saxon media were reeled in by Lord McAlpine in this manner. He spotted a silly BBC error about paedophilia, and he plus other allies have been bashing them for it ever since. Yet again today, McScalpine pitched up saying he was “absolutely astonished” that the Beeb was allowing an anti-Maggie song to be broadcast. What is he after, soviet censorship? Of course he is, the crafty old bugger: he wants his enemies to demoralised, and thus easier to annihilate.

Alf McAlpine isn’t astonished by anything. Except, perhaps, how easy it is to take people in.

The Left, meanwhile, has been running pieces over the last 48 hours claiming that Buckingham Palace ‘disapproves’ of the choice of St Paul’s Cathedral for Baroness Thatcher’s funeral service. I disapprove too, but I’ve been trying to stand up the reports and I don’t believe a bloody word of it. However, it suits the Mirror and the Guardian to remind people about Maggie’s delusions of grandeur….every bit as much as it suits the Telegraph and the Express to use verbs like ‘snub’ and ‘refuse’ when it comes to reporting on the BBC’s unwillingness to go along with brainless idolatry.

I posted about the Baroness three days ago. My verdict, and the preference for brevity, still stand. I am at Thatchuration point with all this propagandic mud-slinging. But yes, OK – I too am trying to persuade: I used to be one of those ghastly advertising men building brands and creating jobs, oh woe is me, what a capitalist swine I was. But my persuasion is now as it was then: open, honest, and well-intentioned. I find it sweetly ironic that those claiming to be anti-Stalinist (it’s an easy position to adopt, after all) increasingly use the Brechtian Good Lie to make their ‘case’.

Two opposing lies make only a cacophony of noise to drown out the truth. They require us to be vigilant at all times.

Hat Tip -

The Slog



Mistreating Palestinian Children


Societies perhaps are best judged by how they treat prisoners, their most disadvantaged and children.
On March 20, Israeli soldiers mass arrested about 30 children. Obama arrived the same day. Every child passing Tareq Bin Zeyad street was seized. They were heading for school in Hebron.

They were taken to Kiryat Arba police station. They were interrogated with no adult present. Israel’s Youth Law requires it. Shin Bet pays it no heed. Children are isolated from parents. They’re terrorized. It’s standard Israeli practice.

Mistreating Palestinian Children

Targeted children committed no crimes. An Israeli army spokeswoman said soldiers “operated in the area today in order to contain rock hurling at security forces (following an increase in) rioting.”

At least 14 were aged 11 or younger. Some were young as 8. Israel treats children like adults. International law is clear. A child is anyone under age 18. State Parties are legally bound to treat them accordingly.
Principle 1 of the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child says:
“Every child, without exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to (fundamental human and civil) rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.”

They’re entitled to special protections and opportunities. It’s to help them develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, and socially. It’s so they’ll do it under conditions of freedom and dignity.

They include the right to life, an adequate standard of living, healthcare, education, leisure, safety and peace. For over four decades, Israel systematically denied Palestinians all rights.

On March 31, Haaretz headlined “The IDF must stop arresting children,” saying:
On March 20, Israeli soldiers “ambushed and arrested” Palestinian children. At least 18 were under age 12. They’re below “the minimum age at which they can legally be held responsible for a crime.”
“This large-scale roundup was arbitrary.” Soldiers grabbed every child they saw. First and second-graders aged 8 or younger were taken.

Doing so was reprehensible. International law forbids it. So does Israeli law. Arrests came days after a UNICEF report. It’s titled “Children in Israeli Military Detention.”
It sharply criticized Israel. It said around 700 Palestinian children aged 12 – 17 are arrested annually. It’s about two per day. Thousands have been mistreated. They’re terrorized. They’re harshly interrogated.
Doing so “amount(s) to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Convention on the Rights of the Child mandates that they be kept safe from harm.

Article 4 states:
“Governments have a responsibility to take all available measures to make sure children’s rights are respected, protected and fulfilled.”

Article 37 states:
“No one is allowed to punish children in a cruel or harmful way. Children who break the law should not be treated cruelly.”

Other provisions mandate State Parties to ensure that “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

“Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.”

Israel spurns international law. It violates its own. It ignores its High Court rulings. According to UNICEF:
“In addition to Israel’s obligations under international law, the guiding principles relating to the prohibition against torture in Israel are to be found in a 1999 decision of the Supreme Court, which is also legally binding on the Israeli military courts.”

“The Court concluded that a reasonable interrogation is necessarily one free of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and that this prohibition is absolute.”
Based on interviews UNICEF conducted, abuse and mistreatment persist. It’s consistent during arrest, transfer, detention and interrogation.

Heavily armed soldiers break into homes pre-dawn. Parents and children are terrorized. Threats and physical violence follow. Fundamental rights are systematically denied.

UNICEF calls Israeli mistreatment “widespread, systematic and institutionalized.” Children are taken from their families. They’re detained. They’re terrorized under harsh conditions. Many become traumatized.

“In no other country are children systematically tried by juvenile military courts that, by definition, fall short of providing the necessary guarantees to ensure respect for their rights.”

On March 29, Gideon Levy headlined “Aged eight, wearing a Mickey Mouse sweatshirt, and placed in Israeli custody,” saying:
Hebron area Palestinian children “never made it to school this week. IDF troops lay in ambush for them.”
Hebron residents were unnerved. They saw dozens of Israeli soldiers on streets and rooftops. They were justifiably frightened.

Children were arrested indiscriminately. An International Solidarity Movement volunteer videotaped what happened. She sent it to B’Tselem. It’s available on its web site and YouTube.

Israel deported the photographer the same day. Western media ignored what happened.
“Ahmed Abu Rimaileh woke up at 7 that morning,” said Levy. His mother gave him pocket money. He left for school. He stopped to buy cookies. He kept another shekel for recess.

He was about to leave the store. Seven or eight children rushed in. So did soldiers. Arrests followed.
Ahmed was scared. He began crying. He and other detained children “were thrust into an army vehicle.” Some sat. Others stood. One child was hit. They were taken to Kiryat Arba police station.

They were placed in a closed courtyard. They were told to sit on the ground. Children over age 12 were separated from younger ones. They were taken to Ofer Prison.
“Children asked to go to the bathroom but were forbidden to do so.” Police asked who threw stones. No one confessed. They were asked if they knew who threw them. Two older children were named. They’d been arrested and separated from others.

Ahmed was released. The next day he didn’t want to go to school. Who could blame him. His parents persuaded him. He didn’t go to classes. He stayed in the principal’s office all day.

“He wants to be a doctor when he grows up….His mother says he is a good student and a good boy.” He has “seven brothers and sisters. The five boys sleep in one room, on two beds and on mattresses on the floor.”
Ahmed’s mother knows Israeli arrests happen often. “We are used to it,” she said. It doesn’t make it right. It gets worse. Palestinian children are terrorized, traumatized, tortured, abused, and imprisoned. Most sentences range from two weeks to 10 months.

Sworn affidavits obtained from the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PACTI), Adalah, DCI-Palestine, and other human rights groups say systematic cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are commonplace.
Children are forcefully arrested, painfully handcuffed, blindfolded, intimidated, verbally abused, strip searched, beaten, threatened, isolated, sexually threatened and abused, and forced to sign confessions in Hebrew they don’t understand.

It’s standard practice. On average, it happens twice daily. What’s a child to do? Going to school, running errands for parents, or playing with friends is risky. Normal life under occupation’s impossible.

Charging children with stone throwing is commonplace. It’s unconscionable. It happens daily. Under Military Order 1651, Section 221, it’s punishable as follows:
against people or property, it carries a maximum 10 year penalty; for children aged 13 or younger, it’s six months; and throwing stones or other objects against moving vehicles risks up to 20 years imprisonment; for children 13 or younger, it’s six months.

In practice, it’s two weeks to 10 months. It’s unjust, improper and lawless. It persists. Anything goes is policy. Young children are treated like adults. Some never fully recover from the experience.



Top Economic Advisers Forecast War and Unrest

Kyle Bass, Martin Armstrong, Larry Edelson, Charles Nenner, James Dines, Nouriel Roubini, Jim Rogers, Marc Faber and Jim Rickards Warn of War


We’re already at war in numerous countries all over the world.
But top economic advisers warn that economic factors could lead to a new world war.
Kyle Bass writes:
Trillions of dollars of debts will be restructured and millions of financially prudent savers will lose large percentages of their real purchasing power at exactly the wrong time in their lives. Again, the world will not end, but the social fabric of the profligate nations will be stretched and in some cases torn. Sadly, looking back through economic history, all too often war is the manifestation of simple economic entropy played to its logical conclusion. We believe that war is an inevitable consequence of the current global economic situation.
Martin Armstrong writes this week:
We will be updating the Cycle of War. Obviously, it is time once again. Especially since that model also hit to the day 3 times in a row.
Similarly, Larry Edelson wrote an email to subscribers entitled “What the “Cycles of War” are saying for 2013″, which states:
Since the 1980s, I’ve been studying the so-called “cycles of war” — the natural rhythms that predispose societies to descend into chaos, into hatred, into civil and even international war.
I’m certainly not the first person to examine these very distinctive patterns in history. There have been many before me, notably, Raymond Wheeler, who published the most authoritative chronicle of war ever, covering a period of 2,600 years of data.
However, there are very few people who are willing to even discuss the issue right now. And based on what I’m seeing, the implications could be absolutely huge in 2013.
Former Goldman Sachs technical analyst Charles Nenner – who has made some big accurate calls, and counts major hedge funds, banks, brokerage houses, and high net worth individuals as clients – says there will be “a major war starting at the end of 2012 to 2013”, which will drive the Dow to 5,000.
Veteran investor adviser James Dines forecast a war is epochal as World Wars I and II, starting in the Middle East.
Nouriel Roubini has warned of war with Iran. And when Roubini was asked:
Where does this all lead us? The risk in your view is of another Great Depression. But even respectable European politicians are talking not just an economic depression but possibly even worse consequences over the next decade or so. Bearing European history in mind, where does this take us?
He responded:
In the 1930s, because we made a major policy mistake, we went through financial instability, defaults, currency devaluations, printing money, capital controls, trade wars, populism, a bunch of radical, populist, aggressive regimes coming to power from Germany to Italy to Spain to Japan, and then we ended up with World War II.
Now I’m not predicting World War III but seriously, if there was a global financial crisis after the first one, then we go into depression: the political and social instability in Europe and other advanced economies is going to become extremely severe. And that’s something we have to worry about.
Billionaire investor Jim Rogers notes:
A continuation of bailouts in Europe could ultimately spark another world war, says international investor Jim Rogers.
“Add debt, the situation gets worse, and eventually it just collapses. Then everybody is looking for scapegoats. Politicians blame foreigners, and we’re in World War II or World War whatever.”
Marc Faber says that the American government will start new wars in response to the economic crisis:
We’re in the middle of a global currency war – i.e. a situation where nations all compete to devalue their currencies the most in order to boost exports. And Brazilian president-elect Rousseff said in 2010:
The last time there was a series of competitive devaluations … it ended in world war two.
Jim Rickards agrees:
Currency wars lead to trade wars, which often lead to hot wars. In 2009, Rickards participated in the Pentagon’s first-ever “financial” war games. While expressing confidence in America’s ability to defeat any other nation-state in battle, Rickards says the U.S. could get dragged into “asymmetric warfare,” if currency wars lead to rising inflation and global economic uncertainty.
As does Jim Rogers:
Trade wars always lead to wars.
And given that many influential economists wrongly believe that war is good for the economy … many are overtly or quietly pushing for war.
Moreover, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that the Iraq war was really about oil , and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And see this and this. If that war was for petroleum, other oil-rich countries might be invaded as well.
And the American policy of using the military to contain China’s growing economic influence – and of considering economic rivalry to be a basis for war – are creating a tinderbox.
Finally, multi-billionaire investor Hugo Salinas Price says:
What happened to [Libya's] Mr. Gaddafi, many speculate the real reason he was ousted was that he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to him that happened to Saddam because the US doesn’t want any solid competing currency out there vs the dollar. You know Gaddafi was talking about a gold dinar.
Indeed, senior CNBC editor John Carney noted:
Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.
Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal thinks the central banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a strong influence over the rebels.
This suggests we have a bit more than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Wenzel writes.
Indeed, some say that recent wars have really been about bringing all countries into the fold of Western central banking.

Many Warn of Unrest

Numerous economic organizations and economists also warn of crash-induced unrest, including:


S0 were on the verge of WWIII.
In our not so great country how will we be protected?
Do we dust off the old WWII Bunkers and batten down the hatches hoping for the best or 'Duck and Cover'?

Let's face it that is ALL we can do.

Our Governments have been wasting Billions of Pounds of OUR TAXES on Foreign Aid instead of constructing Nuclear Bunkers/Fall out shelters to protect its citizens.

Wouldn't it be ironic if our Aid Taxes went on to pay for massive Underground Shelters in the Third world leaving us in Britain to suffer the fate of Thermonuclear war.
Russia has been building, on a huge scale, underground bunkers to protect its citizens.

Why haven't our Governments been doing the same for us, are we not worthy of life/survival?
Maybe they think that after its all over no one would want to live in Post-Apocalyptic Britain.
Or maybe they've decided that if anyone is going to be saved its going to be them.

Then again this could all be just scaremongering, but wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution, just in case?

Whichever way and whatever happens we are always going to be shat on by the Elites of Westminster, and we pay them to do it too.


Thursday, 11 April 2013


I believe it was Albert Einstein that  said that “if the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, man would have only four years to live”. 
Basically his theory makes a lot of sense. 
No Bees, No Pollination!  
There is no question the bees are becoming extinct. Ask any “beekeeper” and they’ll tell you the same.
I know there have been attempts at “alternative” Pollination but none have ever been successful. Only the Bees can do what GOD designed them to do.

Global Disappearance of Bees

Well for the last 7 years the bees worldwide have been disappearing and no one really knows why.
The disorder has significantly affected bee populations since the 1970′s with a sharp increase in losses since 2006. Now, as beekeepers return to their hives to prepare for spring pollination, they are finding that at least half of their bees are gone.
This syndrome, named colony collapse disorder, or CCD, is characterized by the disappearance of adult honey bees from the hive, leaving the newborns to fend for themselves.
The 2013 year now marks the highest loss on record with at least 50 percent of all European honeybees in the U.S. reported lost to CCD.

Honey bees are of vital importance, and their declining populations are an incredibly critical issue.
As pollinators, they are responsible for over 130 different fruit and vegetable crops that we eat.
As they travel from blossom to blossom in search of nectar, pollen sticks to their furry body and is transferred to another flowering blossom enabling it to swell into a ripened fruit.
Animal pollination is essential for nuts, melons and berries, and plays varying roles in citrus fruits, apples, onions, broccoli, cabbage, sprouts, courgettes, peppers, aubergines, avocados, cucumbers, coconuts, tomatoes and broad beans, as well as coffee and cocoa.
Just what’s killing the bees remains a mystery but beekeepers are beside themselves, often approaching their hives to find hundreds of worker bees dying outside the hives each day. 
As the bees die, farmers lose the ability to pollinate crops, reducing yields and thereby the food supply. 
Farmers are now projecting that the decrease in the supply of fruits and vegetables will be so great that prices will be impacted by the summer of this year. 
A number of beekeepers blame pesticides for the loss of their bees, specifically as class known as neonicotinoids.  
Neonicotinoids are a form of pesticide that work by blocking the nerve endings in insects, paralyzing them so that they die slowly by starvation. Beekeepers think their bees are being exposed to the pesticides and are dying as a result.