Mr. Cameron, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, has a lot on his plate! He and the elite constituency he represents are engaged in several wars, on several fronts, yet he can’t admit why. In fact, he dare not admit why because, if he did, he’d have another war on his hands, a war with his own countrymen, though, in truth, the battle lines for this conflict were drawn three decades ago. The opposing armies have been in place for a similar time and are presently watching each other from either side of the battle field. The opposing generals are making their plans and their troops are nervously sharpening their weapons and painting their faces. We had a glimpse of this potential war, last week, when parts of Britain went up in flames. Mr. Cameron immediately condemned the rioters as thugs, hooligans and anarchists. Yesterday, he suggested their parents were to blame. Tomorrow, it will be more platitudes, the same easy answers, while the millions of disenfranchised, broke and jobless people, few of whom joined in the rioting, and for whom the government – with its policy of ensuring the well-being of globalist bankers above that of their own electorate – is no longer relevant will be painted out of the picture by an obliging media. Mr. Cameron cannot acknowledge these truths, however, for to do so would require he admit the active complicity of Parliament in the destruction of our once, ‘Green and Pleasant Land’. As for the thugs, layabouts, drug dealers, and suchlike, they too are the product of the policies of former British governments (as well as their European counterparts), all of whom were and remain under the thrall of the George Soros funded pseudo-socialist movement, on the one hand, and the Machiavellian manipulations of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Group on the other, all of whom act as if they wish to condemn every one of us to a life of serfdom through uncontrolled immigration, which dilutes and ultimately erases any sense of national identity – to more easily facilitate the introduction of a One World Government, one supposes – through the destruction of civic pride and ‘community’, by the imposition of a ‘one size fits all’ education system in which those who do not want to learn are given more attention than those that do and, in the case of Britain, it would seem, the ‘Victorian’ work ethic.
So, war it is, and more war it will be, for only in war can a government gain total authority and the guaranteed submission of its people. A war like the one Mr. Cameron and his French counterpart, Bonaparte Sarkozy have unleashed on North Africa’s fortuitous and timely replacement for Bin Laden, Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi.
Is it just about Libyan oil, or is it really about something else? On the face of it, Libya’s oil, rather the market it was destined for and the country which had invested significant sums of money in recovering it, China, might be the target. Denying the Chinese access to the oil would seem to be part of some global chess game, but China is no threat to the West, despite the clamors from the military/industrial complex, just as the threat posed by Russia was exaggerated to boost the income of American weapons manufacturers like Northrop, Boeing and Britain’s BAE and to maintain fear of nuclear annihilation in their respective populations. No, China is not the threat. Never has been. Its rise to power was orchestrated by the financial and corporate elite, in Wall Street and the City of London for a number of reasons, none of them to do with improving the lot of the average Chinese. By moving manufacturing off shore to China, western corporations got to make far bigger profits, got rid of the headache of dealing with powerful unions who demanded a living wage for their members (uncontrolled immigration helped with this, too), and goosed the value of the stock markets. These corporations also got to declare their profits outside their respective countries, meaning they didn’t have to pay taxes. Investment bankers and corporate CEOs engaged in off-shoring were not interested in the trade deficits that would result from turning what was formally home based production into imports, those are government’s problem and the budget deficits they produce because of lower, even zero corporate tax payments (G.E. for instance), are ultimately the tax payers’ problem. There was one small fly in the ointment: less high paid wages in the west might cause unrest. Answer: cheap and plentiful money dolled out to the masses through housing loans and credit cards to give the plebs the illusion that they were still making a good living. That strategy, of course, is toast now, but the banks got their losses covered by the tax payer, which, despite the kabuki theater of the TARP bailout, had almost certainly been in the plan from the moment the first manufacturing jobs moved East.
Yes, China might build up a sizable military, but it’s still sitting on one point three trillion of U.S. treasuries and worthless dollar bills, which could melt away to nothing if the US Federal Reserve keeps on printing money, which it will, because a falling dollar makes corporate profits earned in a foreign country, in another currency, seem much greater when the dollar falls against that currency. That also gooses the stock market. So, the oil going to China isn’t the real reason, if it features at all in our rulers’ thinking.
Let’s look at the principle players. Under what was originally a U.N. resolution to put in place a no-fly zone over Libya, ostensibly to protect a rag tag assemblage of rebels – most of whom the western powers know very little about – from the tyrant Gaddafi’s nineteenth century air force, Britain, France, and that great enabler, the United States government, have decided they have the right, nay the God Given Duty, to remove the man from power. They are doing this by dropping bombs, hither and yon, regardless of whom they kill and, in the way of all things military, making a complete Horlicks of it! Of course, these are not British and French bombs, they are NATO’s bombs, which are in truth, American bombs because NATO ran out of theirs weeks ago.
I have yet to see any kind of justification for NATO’s involvement. It was never set up for this kind of imperialist adventure. It was inaugurated 4th April, 1949. Its first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously stated the organization’s avowed goal was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down”. With the fall of the Russian bear, NATO became, overnight, a solution looking for a problem. Not to worry. Problems to which NATO might become the solution, once more, abound in a world suffering the first pangs of oil and resource depletion, and it is reportedly making plans to whack Syria, Lebanon and Iran, in short order. NATO has become an enthusiastic partner to American militarism and has abandoned its high sounding motto, “Animus in Consulendo Liber”, altogether, in favor of taking up the Red Cross and white tabard of the Knight Crusader of the eleventh century. The English translation of this motto underlines the dramatic shift undertaken by NATO’s leaders, and ranges from the cryptic, “in discussion a free mind”, to the more complex “Man’s mind ranges unrestrained in counsel”. [I prefer, ‘Never Anticipate the Obvious’, myself!]. Nothing there about dropping bombs on people; nothing there about hatching plans to sequester middle-east oil fields; nothing there about providing political cover for American wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, why is Mr. Cameron and other Western leaders so intent on setting fire to the Muslim world, while ignoring the fires burning in their own back yards? Could it be, say, that Mr. Gaddafi was thinking about offering his high quality oil for sale in something other than US dollars? Like, maybe, a gold based currency, called the Golden Dinar? The entire western economy is based on the US Dollar as the Global Reserve Currency. It is a fiat currency, printed on cotton and not backed by gold. It can therefore be revalued on demand, up or down – usually down – for political and/or financial advantage/profit. A gold based currency would threaten the dollar’s hegemony, eviscerate western banks, likely give rise to a basket of currencies being used to purchase oil, and move the financial center of gravity to the East. China would, in that situation, become far more than a manufacturing sub-contractor for the West. Saddam Hussein merely floated the idea of accepting Euros as payment for his country’s oil, and Iraq was duly flattened. Imagine the angst Mr. Gaddafi’s quest to bring into existence a gold backed currency, to be used throughout the entire continent of Africa, might have caused in the corridors of power in London and Washington. Why do I think this was a major factor in the West’s decision to attack Libya? Because, within days of the uprising, a Central Bank of Libya was instituted. It took less than a week to fundamentally change the financial structure of a nation, during a time of conflict and, yet, Washington took three months to come up with a plan to extend the U.S. debt limit?
Then, of course, there’s simple racism to add to the mix. The British Elite hold the entire non-Anglo Saxon world in contempt. Always has done. The English language is replete with derogatory names for Spaniards, the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Indians, the Pakistanis, the Muslims, the Africans – even the Americans, if the truth be told. Gaddafi is a just another ‘bloody foreigner’ messing about with ‘our oil’ and trying to sell it to the Chinks in a non-Dollar currency. Besides, the thinking undoubtedly goes, he and the other Arab nations wouldn’t have been able to sell us that oil in the first place had we not gone there and dug it out of the ground for them. So, really, it’s all our oil.
Let’s revisit nineteenth century history, briefly.
In I882 there arose in the Sudan, a province of Upper Egypt, one Mohammed Ahmed, who called himself the Mahdi or Messiah, and invited all true believers to join in a holy war against the Christians. Thousands of wild tribesmen flocked to his banner and in the following year he annihilated an army of eleven thousand English and Egyptians that had attempted to subdue the revolt. Rather than send more soldiers to die in the deserts of the Upper Nile, England decided to abandon the province. But first the thousands of Europeans who had taken refuge in Khartoum and other towns of the Sudan must be rescued from their perilous position. In this crisis, the Government turned to the one man who could effect the withdrawal if it was still possible and in January, 1884, appointed General Gordon to superintend the evacuation of the Sudan. Khartoum came under siege the next month and on 26th January 1885 the rebels broke into the city, killing Gordon (against the Mahdi’s instructions) and the other defenders. The British relief force arrived two days later. The British public reacted to Gordon’s death by acclaiming ‘Gordon of Khartoum’, who had had a strong Christian faith, a martyred warrior-saint and by blaming the government, particularly Gladstone, for failing to relieve the siege. The British Government, I believe, decided at that moment that the Arab people should never, again, be permitted to join together and rise up against British Colonial and commercial interests [for today, read ‘Western’] in the Middle East. Embarrassment, at losing to a bunch of ‘rag heads’, combined with the aforementioned racism for which the British Elite were and are justifiably famous formed the basis of a renewal of the religious war that has raged, sometimes unseen, between Christians and Muslims for a thousand years. Then they found the oil!
A final word on Mr. Gaddafi: he is not a nice man. No one who holds power for the length of time he did lacks the ability to deal with challenges to his authority. And, yet, for several years, having renounced his nuclear weapon program, he became an erstwhile ally in the ‘fight against terror’. His demise, which can only be weeks away, now, reinforces an important lesson: never trust the West! Will he be missed? Perhaps? After all, he has consistently acted as a gatekeeper for Europe against economic migration from Sub-Saharan Africa. Already, we are seeing a large uptick of migrants trying to reach Italy. It would have been prudent for the European leaders involved in the attacks on Libya to have considered this possible outcome, but, alas, they care nothing for the impoverished masses struggling to find salvation on the streets of Europe any more than they care about the impact those migrants might have on the welfare of their own citizens.
In Britain, and across the globe, the rot is clearly visible. ‘Global Terrorism’ is the raison d’etre we are given for the imposition of ever more authoritarian governance; for the enhanced and widespread surveillance of populations, and for the intrusion of government agencies into our everyday lives. But it’s a crock, and people know this, not least because of movies like, ‘The Veteran’. Instead of seeking solutions at an international level, our betters in the Palace of Westminster, D.C. and Strasbourg have decided on war, in the name of spreading democracy abroad while eradicating it at home. The Elite are planning their exit, but they need time to build their fortified redoubts and, so, we must be kept in a state of perpetual fear, to make us compliant and willing to sacrifice our hopes and dreams for their better tomorrow, while our lifestyle slides backwards to the dark ages and a re-emergence of the feudal society our rulers pine for.
Good luck with that, Mr. Cameron!