KB  10.1.2003

16 September 2002
British Troops should tell Blair
"We will not fight in Iraq"

Social capitalist prime minister Tony Blair wants to use British troops to lick the rear end of cowboy president George W. Bush even though most of the British people, the Labour party, the TUC and his colleagues around Europe are against any attack on Iraq. It has even been suggested that Mrs Windsor (aka HM Queen) does not like the idea, but the class traitor Blair has reminded her, while grinning broadly, that it is he alone who has the right to exercise the royal prerogative of going to war. However, the dear old lady parasite is constitutionally still the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces, and it is to her alone that every sailor, marine, soldier and airman has sworn allegiance. So, if she does not want to fight, the troops would be obliged to tell Blair and their generals to go to hell if they should be ordered to attack Iraq while ignoring her wishes.

Whatever history may have dictated, and even though monarchs, presidents and premiers may usurp their authority, sovereignty now belongs to the people, and it is on their behalf that any elected politician should act, not at the behest of globalised commercial organisations which are prepared to reward corrupt governments and provide massive wealth for traitors. To act against the interests of the people of Britain on behalf of foreign powers, whether sitting in the White House or in Wall Street, is high treason, but is that not what the sycophantic Tony Blair is doing? And is it not also treasonous for US presidents to act against the interests of their citizens in order to favour commercial organisations of whatever nationality, as so many of them have done?

Was it George W. Bush or Sadam Hussein who called upon all nations to choose either to support his country or support "the terrorists" on pain of war? Was it Hussein or Bush who warned Syria that, if they did not come on side, they would be next to be attacked after Iraq? Yet it is the Iraqi government which is demonised as threatening the world, not the terrorist empire known as the USA, a rogue state which holds and manufactures more chemical weapons, more biological weapons and more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world put together. The usurper Blair said recently that he knew of no other country than Iraq that had used biological and chemical weapons, but he seems to have forgotten Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and in particular agent orange. And, although he may not have been born at the time, he surely has read of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where hundreds of thousands of civilians died as the result of Yankee atom bombs.

Anglo-US Policies Are Racist
If Iraq must allow in UN inspectors to investigate their ability to make or fight with weapons of mass destruction, destroying any they find, then every other country must do the same including the United Kingdom and the United States of North America. Furthermore, no country holding any such weapons of mass destruction should be allowed to provide any of the inspectors. That would be like sending the New York cosa nostra to enquire into criminal activity of the mafia in Sicily; and Hussein is right, Yankee inspectors are likely to be spies first on behalf of Washington and inspectors second while working for the United Nations and being handsomely paid by them. Oh, but I forget, the holy principle by which the Yanks operate is that of Manifest Destiny, the same as that by which they massacred millions of Native Americans so that they could steal their land. Anglo-Saxons on both sides of the Atlantic will deny racism but, when they propose that weapons of mass destruction are naturally safe in their hands while under the control of other nations they would be inherently dangerous, they are claiming racial superiority. That is racism.

In their genocidal atrocities against indigenous peoples, Anglo-Saxons in the New World were continuing the habits of their brothers in their homeland. These were overtly demonstrated in Africa during the 19^th and 20^th centuries as, for example, in Zimbabwe where trickery and mass murder were employed to expropriate the best land from its Mshona and Ndebele owners. Chiefs and kings like Lobengula were tricked into signing over mining rights for a pottage of cattle and a toybox of pistols and, the African occupants having been massacred, the land was declared vacant and distributed amongst white colonists. In north America the descendants of the nations who suffered genocide and transportation worse than the Jews in Nazi cattle trucks stand no more chance of regaining the land stolen from them than the Aboriginal Australians have of regaining their rights of possession stripped with the bloodthirsty hands of English settlers from their forefathers.

In Zimbabwe, however, power was recovered by Africans in a successful war against their European oppressors. A treaty was entered into which provided for the return of much of the land to the victorious Africans, but the white farmers had no intention of giving it up without a struggle and compensation for the land they now claimed was theirs. Thus the thieves wanted to be rewarded by their victims for returning the valuable property they had stolen. This follows of course the precedent established with the abolition of slavery, when the slave owners received generous compensation for the slaves they had lost while their former human property received nothing but a tenuous freedom. The white farmers have rigged the farms so that they could claim that what the traitor rebel Ian Smith had always maintained, that the African was not capable of running the country, particularly agriculture, while the buyers of their tobacco paid most of the money into foreign banks in order to bankrupt the country.

There is much that is reprehensible about the behaviour of Robert Mugabe, as there is about the dictatorial treachery of Sadam Hussein against his own people, but those with blood on their hands have no right to call the kettle black. When Peter Hain exposed his apartheid roots in making racist remarks about Zimbabweans and Blair recognised the usurper Bush as US president, they had no right to call for international monitors to oversee the election of which Mugabe was clearly the winner. How many Black people in Florida were prevented from registering as voters by brother Bush, the governor, and even many who succeeded in getting onto polling lists found themselves barred from entering polling stations or had their votes disqualified as a result of polling machines being fixed so that polling cards were not properly punched. Where were the international monitors which history has shown have been so necessary in the deep south ever since Black people gained the right to vote?

KB 16.09.02

Go to Top

23 September 2002

WAY OF LIFE IN DANGER
Countryside marchers invade London

It was a fine autumn Sunday when 400,000 lords of the manor, country squires, yeomen and peasants packed their sandwiches and, with the supporting strains of the BBC's soap opera 'The Archers'  ringing out over the airwaves, they piled into coaches, cars and trains for the capital city to demonstrate under the banner 'Liberty & Livelihood'.   

Strident claims on liberty and protecting traditions and way of life is a familiar syndrome of those who believe in such rights for themselves while denying them to others they consider lesser mortals. Remember the rebel leader in Southern Rhodesia who led his traitors under slogans that promised the continuance of the white man's standards for a thousand years. Those standards of course included the obtaining by murder and theft of 85% of the best agricultural land in Zimbabwe, land they now refuse to give back without substantial compensation to be paid if possible by the African grandsons of the victims of their terrorist ancestors.

The traditions the countrymen demand embrace the right to hunt with hounds foxes and other animals, including the north American mink, but the absence of Black people amongst the demonstrators perhaps exposes another tradition they are keen to preserve. In spite of the fact that a high proportion of Black people who came to Britain from the Caribbean, Africa and South Asia, were from farming communities, it is rare to see a Black face in rural areas. Many have had to satisfy their love of growing food by taking some of the most successful allotments to be found in towns and cities.

 In an article in the Independent (www.independent.co.uk) on 23rd September, award winning journalist, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, discussed this facet of English institutional racism in her usual trenchant style. It is a pity however that she panders to the racism endemic within the conservative element of her own community by continuously employing the deplorably divisive phrase 'black and Asian' rather than the proud designation 'Black'. She would do well to read the story of the origins of this obnoxious phrase published on this website as the first installment of the book 'by any   other....'   

KB 23.9.02

Go to Top

24 September 2002

A DUBIOUS DOSSIER

On 24th September the UK parliament was recalled from its summer recess to debate the intelligence (but hardly intelligent) dossier on Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry drawn up by Britain's secret services at the urgent request of social capitalist prime minister Tony Blair.

The dossier contained little that was new and was mainly a rehash of the propaganda put out over recent months by cowboy president George W Bush and his poodle, Tony Blair.

The purpose of the debate was for Tony, not grinning quite so widely today, to try to convince a large number of his errant backbenchers that it was right and just for England to bravely shoulder its traditional responsibility to decide how countries far away should be governed especially if they are not white. As the Anglo-Saxons on both sides of the Atlantic are in agreement (as they always will be so long as Tony's long yellow tongue lolls in the bush ready to lick), the royal prerogative waving wannabe capitalist dictator of Great Britain croons in delight the tune written for him by the USurper Bush. This stumbling cowboy, who still falls up stairs almost as often as he did when he was a drunk before he became a born-again Christian, only has to whisper in Tony's ear for his poodle to show his loyalty.

So by divine right the Anglo-Saxons on both sides of the Atlantic will determine the new world order as is their manifest destiny. The trouble with these AS racists, who believe they are superior to all of the rest of mankind, is that they do not understand that their attitudes are racist in the extreme. Sad to say a number of Uncle Tom, self seeking, Black politicians like Condoleeza Rice in the US and Paul Boateng in the UK like to see themselves as honorary Anglo-Saxons and spout the racist mantras almost more stridently than their bacra-massas. I hope the coconuts enjoy the rich sunshine!

KB 24/9/02 

Go to Top

2 October 2002
US and UK MAY DEFY UN -
WILL IGNORE INSPECTOR'S DEAL

The authority of the United Nations will be thrown into doubt if the US and UK decide to attack Iraq now that Sadam Hussein has agreed to obey existing Security Council resolutions and allow the UN inspectors in to search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

This has scuppered the plans of rambo cowboy president Bush to send in his troops to effect regime change in Iraq whether the Iraqi people want it or not. Now that the United States of North America is the only super power, the Yanks think they can throw their weight around all over the world as they have done for nearly 200 years in south and central America. Democracy and human rights have never figured in their commercial intentions because the Yanks find these to be an inhibition to their ability to exploit the labour of working people.

It has been the policy of every US president to ensure this freedom to exploit which has been enjoyed by Yankee corporations throughout the Americas, making the US the richest country in the world by far. This has resulted in vicious right wing regimes which have oppressed their citizens in the most brutal fashion usually with weapons supplied by the US government or with death squads led by police and soldiers trained in the US. Whenever Washington has felt it necessary, it has either clandestinely backed coups d'etat or sent in its marines to overthrow left wing governments which have dared to declare their intention to nationalise or dispossess Yankee corporations.

Of course the one country where the US has failed has been Cuba, which has demonstrated the sort of courage needed by leaders in Europe and the majority world to tell Bush and his henchmen that their attempts to exert imperial power over them will be resisted by any means necessary. 

Bush's poodle Tony Blair, social capitalist premier of the UK, has of course treacherously declared his intention to back the usurper in the White House in whatever he may do, legal or illegal. This is despite the clear wishes of the people of Britain as well as those of his own party. 

The Blair cabinet is actually a minority government because a majority of MPs and certainly his party members oppose his pro-capitalist policies of privatisation of hospitals and schools as well as being overwhelmingly against military action against Iraq without United Nations authority. But British MPs are pretty spineless and afraid to stand up to Blair and his cronies in case they don't get the government jobs they are seeking. Most of them know they have it within their power to remove him as the party leader but there is not one with the guts to call for a change in leadership.

However, Bush had better watch out, there has been a tradition of assassinating US presidents. The only pity is that killing the president has never resulted in the establishment of a  government in Washington which not only believes in truly democratic principles for itself but for all peoples globally under the sole authority of the United Nations. That is the only type of globalisation which is acceptable.

KB 2.10.02

Return to Home Page

Go to Top

 12 October 2002
EU Expansion spells Germanic/Slavic Domination
Smaller states will be marginalized

It cannot be denied that, as one of the smaller EU states, the Irish Republic has seen many benefits from its membership. From being one of Europe’s poorer countries still suffering from the hangover of English colonial oppression, Ireland has experienced improvements in its agriculture that have established the republic as a sound economy. Moreover, culturally Ireland has been able to take a greater lead within the Union than before out of all proportion to its size, while its love of freedom and its tradition of democracy have influenced the thinking of other EU states.

Now the mantle of protecting the independence, traditions and cultures of European minorities has fallen to the Irish people, as for the second time they cast their votes in the referendum to accept or reject the Nice Treaty. It is an onerous responsibility as it will be the last time ever that any people within the European Union will be able to call a stop to potential losses of freedoms or to prevent domination of Europe by a single or joint ethnic grouping. Certainly, the Republic’s honourable tradition of neutrality will be lost.

Rather than go through a process of expanding the EU by admitting eight eastern European states plus Malta and Cyprus, it is time to examine the workings of the EU. These have evolved out of all proportion to the original concept of European unity following the tribal wars which so often in the previous millennium brought ruination to the continent as monarchs, religious leaders and dictators fought to build nation states and then empires. They cared not how soaked the soil of Europe became with the blood of their people so long as they could achieve power and wealth for themselves. Now by political chicanery the leaders of the largest states seek to create an imperial reich, for the domination of which each will vie against the others.

The eight east European applicant states with populations totaling some 75 million have one feature in common, they all have a Slavic background and thus belong to the Germanic ethnic group. Although the present ethnic composition of the European Union is not quite in balance, the smaller states have been able to overcome any really adverse effect of this by strategically using their votes and vetoes to prevent total domination by either the Germanic or Latin group. The make-up of the EU is presently nine Germanic countries with populations totaling some 195 millions against four Latin countries with 165 million people. In addition there is Greece with ten and half million and the single Celtic country of Ireland with three and half million citizens; although the Celtic grouping could be quadrupled were the Celtic nations within the UK, France and Spain to be represented directly within a regionally based Confederation of Europe

60% EU IS ETHNICALLY GERMANIC
With the admission of the ten proposed member states and the loss of powers of veto, any pretence at ethnic balance will be completely lost. Within a few years the proportions will be 17 Germanic states with 270 million people against 7 Latin/Mediterranean states with less than 200 million population and Ireland out on its own as the sole Celtic member. But this is not the whole depth of the potential problem: waiting in the wings are another twelve applicants with populations totaling 190 million. Of these only Albania and Turkey are not Germanic and nine out of the other ten are Slavic so that it is clear that there will be pressures from present applicant Slavic members to admit them all on terms which will not include those which currently aim at ensuring the continued economic strength and political liberalism as the EU now represents.

Such a massive predominance of Slavic states in alliance with other Germanic countries including England would result in Latin, Mediterranean and Celtic countries being forced into a subservience similar to that of Scotland or Wales within the United Kingdom. Moreover, when it suits them, the Slavic states may call upon the support of the one whose membership could never be allowed, Russia. The internecine arguments which could develop within the Union would reach dangerous proportions especially as Slavic states from the Balkans to the Baltic have shown in recent years a tendency to turn to violence and civil war to achieve their perverse ends.

The prime aim of the union of states within Europe was to avoid the savage wars that had so frequently happened over previous centuries. Yet current plans for expansion seem designed to ferment the hidden bellicose volcanoes which exist beneath the European continent, but the personal ambitions of leading politicians are blinding them to any such possibility. Each of them will seek to be the effective presidential overlord of the whole of Europe, an ambition last demonstrated by the Adolf Hitler.

One of the issues which needs to be discussed urgently before any expansion of the European Union takes place is whether membership should be based on regions rather than on nation states. The evolution of nation states is an horrific story of war, murder, devastation and oppression as spiritual as well as temporal princes have viciously fought each other to gain pre-eminence. Within or outside the EU, nation states deserve to be broken up so that the stronger ethnic groups will no longer be able to oppress the smaller and will no longer be able to bring ruination and misery to all as they have done particularly in the last couple of centuries. Most of the remaining struggles for self determination, as for example by the Basques, the Corsicans or on the island of Ireland, would be capable of solution the moment sovereignty within France, Spain, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom were to be handed over to regional governments so that populations would not exceed 15 million citizens each.

With representation within the European Union being held by such regional members only, and with subsidiarity responsibility being the rule for regional governments, true democracy could be possible as the people would never be too far from their government as is presently the case in states with populations of over 30 million. Thus applications from Poland (38 million) and Turkey (63 million) could not be considered at all as only their regions would be able to apply individually. This would be particularly important for the Kurds who find themselves in an oppressive state beneath the jackbooted heel of Ankara every bit as vicious as that experienced by Ireland under the English crown. 

SLAVIC RACISM
Moreover, most Slavic states have an appalling record of racism and anti-Semitism which must be eliminated before any of them are admitted to the EU. This was disgustingly demonstrated on October 12th when Slovakian fans  in Bratislava yelled racist abuse against the England football stars, Emile Heskey and Ashley Cole. Their behaviour was worse than that of the crowd at the Berlin Olympics in 1938 who, in the presence of Adolf Hitler, displayed  the nasty side of their nature against the African American athlete, Jesse Owens. Any state which displays such endemic racism must be treated as a pariah and certainly not be admitted to the EU.  

The other important consideration to be settled before expansion of the EU is the inequality of financial development between existing and applicant members. The economy of the European Union is not yet sufficiently strong to take on the burden of supporting countries whose economic development is primitive in comparison. West Germans have had the experience of their economy being driven into decline ever since East Germany was admitted into the Bundesrepublic. It remains as the root cause for the financial quagmire within which Germany still finds itself being suffocated, and it stands as a warning of what could happen to the European Union were eastern European states to be admitted too early on terms too favourable to them as are presently proposed.

Thus the preservation of the freedoms of all the citizens of Europe lies within the hands of the Irish voter as each places his or her cross against the ‘no’ or ‘yes’ on the referendum form.

KB    12.10.02

Return to Home Page

Go to Top

18 October 2002

Social Capitalist prime minister Tony Blair, while calling for the IRA to disband, says that for Sinn Fein "the fork in the road has finally come". The irony of the double standards he displays seems lost on the wannabe Euro president.

While supporting the cowboy usurper in the White House in his ambition for a high noon shoot out to achieve regime change in Iraq, Blair calls on Irish republicans to abandon force as a means to achieve regime change in Northern Ireland. Moreover, Blair and his treacherous cronies are now seeking to extend England's weaponry to include star wars, all the better to enable them to attack countries they don't like while ensuring that there can be no retaliation or resistance.

The anti-socialist Blair states, "No other country has used chemical weapons against its neighbours". As professing Christians Blair and Bush no doubt follow Christ's teachings in answer to the question "who is thy neighbour?" For a global power it is even more the case that every country in the world must be its neighbour, particularly those adjacent to those where it maintains military bases. Vietnam was most certainly by these definitions the neighbour of the United States, yet it used chemical and biological weapons wiping out the lives of millions of Vietnamese, both Viet Cong who were fighting for their country's freedom as well as non-combatant civilians.

The Vietnam War was of course fought to prevent regime change, that of a vicious right-wing regime set up and maintained by France following the hand back to that country of its former colony by Britain. In spite of their own experience of the immense cruelty of the Japanese, the brave British soldiers had employed defeated Japanese prisoners to impose the status quo until the French could return to reestablish their empire using IMF funds. The French depended substantially on its Foreign Legion troops, of which there were up to 40,000 during the French Indo China War (1946-54), and so many were former German Nazi soldiers that a limit of 25% Germans had to be enforced. 

Condemnation of the use of chemical weapons cannot be restricted to military action; it must also include commercial aggression against foreign states for the sake of profit. Such a case was the gas escape at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, which resulted in the deaths of many thousands of people and which continues to painfully debilitate the lives of hundreds of thousands more. The commercial terrorist CEO has been charged with serious crimes but he has enjoyed the protection of the US authorities who have failed to extradite him to India to stand trial.

Tony Blair continues, "Nor has any killed 5,000 of its own civilians ....".  African Americans would strongly disagree with that statement. The USNA has a long history right up to the present day of attacking its Latin American neighbours usually to establish regimes which will favour Yankee companies over their own. They have supported terrorist groups such as the Contras against the democratically elected Sandanista government in Nicaragua while even today training and backing terrorists to assassinate Fidel Castro in Cuba.

One responsible, thinking British MP has written, "I do believe that in the modern world the international community can have the right to intervene in the affairs of otherwise sovereign states to protect world peace or prevent massive breaches of fundamental human rights and humanitarian disasters. Moreover, I do not believe that just because some countries already have weapons of mass destruction, the international community should never take action to prevent their proliferation. Indeed, if the fact that some nations already possess such weapons causes me real concern, the idea of Saddam developing them again when he used them before fills me with real despair."  

It is difficult to disagree with that sentiment, but who are the 'international community' to which he refers. He surely cannot be referring to the two Anglo-Saxon states which have said they will take action alone if the United Nations do not. International law can only work if all nations including present and former world powers agree to be subject to the decisions of the only acceptable international community, the United Nations. The United States has repeatedly argued that it ought not to be bound by such an organisation but should behave as any Napoleon or Hitler would have done in the past. Nazi Germany did of course withdraw from the League of Nations before it embarked on its war of world domination.

It is foolish to expect the undefeated IRA to disband while British troops remain in occupation of part of Ireland and, were they to do so on terms unacceptable to a substantial dissident proportion of their members, these would rapidly reform as they did following the establishment of the Irish Free State, and extreme violence would return to the streets of Britain again. Tony Blair should learn the lessons of history instead of glorying in the achievements of the English empire which has been discredited and so hated by the majority of its former colonies.

KB   18.10.02  

Go to Top

23 October 2002

PAY FIREFIGHTERS WHAT THEY'RE WORTH
WE NEED THE INFLATION!

When company executives pay themselves outrageous salaries in six figures plus bonuses of millions of pounds, their argument that they must be paid the market value is accepted by the UK's anti-socialist government. The remuneration cannot possibly be based on value of work done because bonuses are paid even when they fail to achieve targets or the employing company loses money.

Why then is the same market value argument not accepted when ordinary workers demand the same treatment? Even were pay to be based on the value of work done, the firefighters' demand for what is said to amount to a 40% increase would be justified. But the percentage increase is quite immaterial because frirefighters are currently being grossly underpaid by about 30%. Meanwhile we have been asking these brave men and women to tax themselves so that we could save less than 20p per week each, which is what a reasonable increase would cost us as citizens .

A fully qualified Fire Fighter after four years training earns £21,531 with the starting pay at under £17,000 for a 42 hour week. An Emergency Fire control operator earns £19,827 with the minimum starting pay at £14,163. Fire Fighters have 11% of their wages deducted for their pension scheme for when they retire at a maximum age of 55 or 60 for officers. They also work more hours per week than normal  so their hourly pay is in fact lower, and so is their take home pay. As a result of these pay levels and the massive increases in house prices, many firefighters can no longer afford to live in the areas of the country where they work.

As public service workers firefighters are entitled to be considered on the same terms as the police, whose lives are not at the same level of risk in their work. Similarly nurses, ambulance people, prison officers and soldiers etc. should all be assessed in the same way. Arguments from our social capitalist government that wages of this order cannot be paid because they would be inflationary are not only untrue but irrelevant, particularly at a time when inflation is so very little above zero. 

When in 1979 the incoming conservative capitalist Thatcher regime were faced with an increase of 25% for the public sector, which had been agreed by the outgoing Labour administration, they did not pretend that it could not be afforded, they accepted the award and paid it. The impact of that on inflation, which was already rising, was minimal, especially in the light of the Tories hyper-inflation, resulting from the more than doubling of Value Added Tax which was one of their ' first acts.

Believe it or not, WE NEED SOME INFLATION 
Current rates of inflation at around 2% and resultant low levels of interest rates are having a devastating effect on economies all over the world. Moreover, the economic orthodoxy that we must learn to live with such low levels because they are good for us is proving to be deeply flawed. This can be clearly seen from collapsing share prices, rising bankruptcies and the general recessionary malaise which is repressing all of us. 

Moreover, the use of interest rates to control inflation is a blunt, inaccurate instrument which is proving largely ineffective. It is no less correct that interest rates should be subject to market forces than a host of other variables. When the average high street buyer purchases anything with a credit card or a loan, the interest rate being charged bears no relationship to the current Bank of England rate. Outrageously exploitive finance companies such as Paragon Finance can charge as much as 30% interest per annum, as of course do store cards, while credit card companies generally charge around 20%. The Bank of England may alter its official interest rates by a quarter per cent at a time, but these finance companies usually take no notice and hold their unnecessarily high rates which do not put off their borrowers, particularly the poor who often have no other choice. 

It is well known that the high street shopper buying on credit is concerned about whether they can afford the repayments  each month, not with interest rates and how many months they will have to pay. So a tiny change in interest rates by the Bank of England is meaningless to them. It has been generally believed that mortgage payers are influenced by these small rate changes, but what is happening at present is that the very low level of interest rates are encouraging them to borrow up to the limit of their income. Should interest rates increase by only two or three per cent, as they might, this will place these house buyers in real danger financially.

Low interest and inflation rates also lead to other problems. The difficulties being experienced with occupational pensions arise largely out of the immense difficulty the pension funds have in earning a reasonable income on their investments. The government's main indicator of inflation, the Retail Price Index, is composed of a variety of products and services for which the inflation rates may range from 15% increases to 15% falls in prices when the RPI is less than 4%, and it is therefore only a rather meaningless, mean average. 

Current low inflation rates, which include so many items at negative inflation, threaten deep recession in all the world's major economies. In countries like Argentina and Brazil, which have tried hard to follow IMF restrictions on them, particularly in respect of public expenditure, the combination of low interest rates and World Trade Organisation rules, which are intended to favour the leading industrial economies, especially the United States, have led to actual collapse in one and extreme difficulties in the other. This is hardly surprising as the IMF, World Bank and WTO were all set up to ensure that transglobal corporations of the 'free' world were in a position to control the markets to their own benefit, and to hell with the people.

LOW INFLATION LEADS TO RECESSION
Low interest rates in Britain have encouraged an overpriced currency so that producers have difficulty selling their exports, as well as the importation of cheap goods to compete unfairly with UK manufactures and problems for the farming industry in obtaining effectively fair rates of subsidy from the EU. Changes in fiscal policy would go a long way to solving all these problems, and it is no use arguing that inflation produces unreal increases in income because expenses go up too. The markets are all totally unreal, being dependent on sentiment, while changes particularly in stock prices are usually far, far greater than would reflect actual asset values or changes in prospects of companies. The secret, hidden agenda is in how the economy is controlled.

In a truly free market economy interest rates would be free to find their own level. Interest Rates should never be used to try to control inflation, a task at which they do not succeed. If interest rates are used to regulate anything, it should be the currency alone. Inflation can only be controlled by regulating the money supply. This is because inflation is related to money supply and occurs when there is too much money chasing too few goods. Increase the amount of goods for sale or restrict the amount of money available and prices will stop rising or be reduced. But, when manufacturers are trying to increase the amount of goods available to bring down inflation, they are forced to pay the bankers' higher rates of interest, and these increase the costs of the goods and as a result are inflationary.

To control the money supply the most effective way is to introduce regulations governing the proportion of the purchase price which may be paid through a mortgage and to fix the amounts which have to be paid on credit cards or by loan finance. Mortgage regulations could require deposits of say 15% or 20% when house prices are rising too fast and such regulatory orders could be placed at almost a moment's notice, thus having an immediate impact. Indeed even the threat of such a prescription would have a rapid effect on house prices.

At present credit card companies are able to decide how much or how little should be paid off the monthly balance. Because shoppers would respond far more quickly to changes in the monthly cost of their purchases, were the Bank of England to dictate that from the following month minimum repayments would have to be say 10% or 15% of new purchases, this would affect immediately any individual's credit spending. Similar means of regulating hire purchase were used to great effect in the middle of last century to control credit except that changes were not made frequently enough as a means to guide inflation. Further, computerisation at that time was not sufficiently advanced to be able to handle such means of control.

Nobody wants to return to the mad days of Tory hyperinflation, but it would be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to require the Bank of England to use these means of credit control to maintain inflation at say between 5% and 7%. This would have the effect of making people feel they had the opportunity to improve their living standards while earning reasonable amounts on their savings and while building decent pension funds. With such low levels of inflation there is no impetus to encourage expenditure, which is necessary to get the economy moving. The public are less interested in the amount they might earn on their bank deposit accounts than might be expected, but they are devastated by the failure of pension funds to earn enough to provide provide a sufficient income on their retirement.

LET'S INCREASE INFLATION -  NOW!
If the Government were to change its policies to encourage moderate inflation, people would no longer feel that saving their money in building societies was worthless, or worry that stock investments were unlikely to bring decent returns while recessionary effects were putting companies at risk. They would see their houses steadily increasing in value even though this would be more apparent than real. Endowment policies would return to providing a reasonable chance of producing sufficient funds at maturity, and workers would have the prospect of getting small increases in income each year. At the same time, steadily adjusting the means of regulation each month would reassure the people that price increases in the shops would be kept at affordable levels and not allowed to rise at unaffordable rates.

So, come on Gordon Brown, tell the IMF this country will no longer follow policies imposed on the United Kingdom for the benefit of the capitalist ideology of the United States and its rapacious transglobal billionaires. Persuade your colleagues in the European Community and within Group 8 to follow your lead while having the courage to carve yourself a place in history. Pay the firefighters and their public service colleagues what they deserve. This will cause far less inflation than you might imagine while increasing the money flow, and it would result in all the benefits described above while getting us out of the disastrous deflationary spiral which daily raises shades of 1929 and the ruinous depression which followed..

But you won't do this because you too are a social capitalist working on behalf of transglobal corporations and you do not have the courage to take such an independent line. It is clear that you are no more a man interested in the well being of the people than your anti- socialist leader or his turncoat deputy. Where, oh where, did all your socialist principles go?

KB   23.10.02    

Go to Top

1 November 2002

Paul Burrell Trial Collapses
Diana's Butler NOT GUILTY!

At 11.30 am on 1st November it was announced that the prosecution had told the Court at the Old Bailey in London that the case against Paul Burrell was no longer viable. The former Butler to Diana, Princess of Wales, was then formally found not guilty of all charges against him. 

Was the Queen Plain Stupid or Malevolently Designing?
It was said that the case against Burrell was dependent on the premise that he had told no-one that he was taking a large quantity of Diana's personal belongings, clothing and letters for safe keeping. But it seems that he had told Diana's mother-in-law, the Queen what he was doing, but she kept quiet about it. Either she was too stupid to realise the importance of this to Burrell's defence or she was prepared to keep quiet while watching him sent to jail for seven years for crimes she knew he did not commit. 

Was Charlie's Conscience the Real Reason?
A week ago she told her husband Philip, a German who claims to be a Greek prince, and her son Charles, Diana's adulterous ex-husband about the conversation. It is claimed that Charlie-boy had a pang of conscience, of which his mother was evidently incapable, and told the police. However it has taken a whole week for the persecution of Burrell and his family to be brought to an end, while the millions of pounds being spent on the investigation and trial of the case continued to be wasted. But was that the real reason for this inconsiderate family's unusual flash of goodness? 

After all their ancestors have spent centuries building their immense wealth and power by theft, murder and framing other noble ponces, frequently getting them executed. Another more likely reason was that they couldn't allow any more family secrets about their nasty habits to be revealed in Court, and evidence for this possibility perhaps lies in the fact that earlier this week the prosecution had applied to the Court for certain 'sensitive' evidence to be suppressed 'in the public interest', although this is contrary to the people's right to know. They could hardly allow the Queen to be cross-examined by the defence lawyers for a mere family servant, never mind the fact that Diana had treated him as a confidant and called him her 'Rock', and this would in any case not be permitted as the the Chief Royal Parasite cannot be called to Court as a witness. Even a BBC reporter said on TV that he found the official reason for ending the trial "difficult to accept" because there had been long reports in all the newspapers of the trial which the Windsors had been following closely. 

The Petulant Princess, and....
Burrell had been accused of stealing more than 300 items belonging mainly to his late mistress following her strange death in a curious motor crash in Paris, which also resulted in the death of her lover and probable fiancé, Dodi Al Fayed. He was the son of the Egyptian owner of Harrods, the top people's store in London, and as an Arab and therefor Black he would have been unacceptable as Diana's husband. The mother of the petulant princess, who had proved herself capable of taking the arrogant Windsor family for a £15 million ride paid to her by the Queen, had told the Court that she had not spoken to Diana for four months before her death following an argument about her boyfriends. All this followed a marriage of convenience to the heir to the English throne in which she was treated as a breeding baby mother by her husband while he continued to consort with his mistress, divorcee Camilla Parker-Bowles, with whom he now cohabits. 

....the Royal Parasites
The royal parasites, who feed off the British public, ignored Diana's protests so she hit back by sleeping around and eventually spilling the beans on TV. The nastiest persecutors of the royal nympho were the two elder Mrs Windsors, otherwise known as the Queen and the late Queen Mother, who have both managed to convince their gullible subjects that they are worth the millions of pounds they screw out of them every year. No doubt the sycophantic royal celebrity followers will mislead themselves into claiming that their Queen is wonderful. The deluded Burrell himself was reported to have said that he was pleased the Queen had "come through" for him. Meanwhile, within a couple of hours the palace spin doctors were putting out the story that it was the Queen's intervention which had saved Burrell from a prison sentence as if she had come to his rescue. If that were true, why did she let him suffer for so long?

KB    12.30 pm  1.11.02

'GYPSIES ARE SWAMPING LOCAL POPULATION'
While some English councils follow the lead of the overtly racist Northamptonshire County Council in deliberate acts of racism, others demonstrate how institutional racism works. One such is the Mid-Bedfordshire Council which has been trying its best to satisfy its local English complainants by evicting twenty-eight Romany families from their own land at Woodside Caravan Park at Hatch near Sandy.

Local villagers had expressed their fear of being "swamped by the Gypsies". 'Swamping' is a word frequently used by racists to describe their fear of being overcome by people of minority ethnic groups. It was used by Margaret Thatcher, Tory prime minister in the 1980s, who, like Elizabeth I four hundred years ago, worried about the number of coloured' people in the country. It was also the word used by David Blunkett, the current New Labour Home Secretary, about the number of refugees and asylum seekers using government facilities. Most of these might be described as Caucasian but, as Blunkett is blind, skin colour would hardly be a factor for him.

£300,000 INVESTMENT WILL BE LOST
Romany families and other travelers are hounded round the country in England because there are insufficient camping sites to accommodate them, and they are continuously being moved on without too much concern for the detrimental effect on children's education. It is not so common for a band of Romas to be able to put together sufficient money to buy the land on which they want to park their caravans. In the case of Woodside Caravan Park, it was bought by the families themselves and they have invested £300,000 in it and were planning to build a Romany Community Centre. Nevertheless, this has not persuaded the Council to look at their own by-laws and practices, as their answer to charges of racism is that they are only applying planning regulations. However, enforcing laws which discriminate against minority ethnic groups is institutional racism, and the answer is to change the laws, not to deprive these people of using their own land in accordance with their culture.

Frequently people who imprison themselves in stone boxes complain that Gypsies are unacceptable as neighbours because they are accused of being thieves and dirty. Further it is not uncommon to for Romas to be made to feel very unwelcome in shops and pubs, where even notices stating "No Travelers" can be found, in spite of the fact that such notices are illegal. However, one of the main complaints of villagers against Woodside Caravan Park Romanies is that some of them are "born-again Christians". Once again English people are demonstrating their traditional intolerance towards anyone who is different.

£300,000 INVESTMENT WILL BE LOST
Meanwhile, following the acquittal of royal butler, Paul Burrell, the sycophants are down on their knees with drooling tongues. The BBC quickly fell in with the spin-doctors in Buckingham Palace by talking about "the Queen's intervention" which had saved Burrell from a long prison sentence. Even Burrell himself, who it seems would rather have gone to jail than say anything embarrassing about the Windsors in his own defence, said "The Queen has come through for me". 

The long suffering public have once again been inflicted with the sycophantic diarrhea that too often is strewn on the airwaves by former Tory Arts Minister and now Lord, Norman St.Jean Stevas. For this driveling life peer, who describes himself as a 'constitutional expert', the royal parasites can do no wrong. The Queen for him has always been an extraordinarily intelligent woman with more political experience than any of her prime ministers, but now he protests that, as she is a septuagenarian, she cannot be expected to remember so much about a conversation with a former servant of hers a few years ago, Also, as she is not a lawyer and, although "a highly intelligent woman", Lord Norman in his sickly accent claims she would not have appreciated the significance of what Burrell had told her. What a slimy crawler this worm is who, by bathing in the glory of his 'betters' like all his kind, feels himself to be superior to everyone else.

Another great sycophant, the social capitalist prime minister Tony Blair, tells us the "the Queen behaved properly throughout" and that he does not believe her exemption from the law requiring the rest of us to attend court when ordered should not be changed. Born into a Tory family and educated at private schools, this wannabe EuroPresident will not allow any criticism of his royal mistress nor of the principles of privilege for, in spite of his much vaunted commitment to "education, education, education", state schools are not good enough for his own children. Not having any right to an hereditary peerage, Blair has been happy to get rid of most these gentlemen from the House of Lords because he does not want anyone above himself. Meanwhile, more than any premier before him he exercises the royal prerogative like a monarch by divine right. This allows him to rule as a dictator including declaring war on countries which represent no threat to his own without reference to the people's elected representatives. No wonder he wants no change to the monarch's privileges.

This Guy Fawkes Day the effigies we burn should not be those of that rebel against the crown 400 years ago. They should be of StJean Stevas, Blair and the Windsor family, all of whom believe they are entitled to continue to screw the public for as much as they can.

KB   5.11.2002

Go to Top