In the future, people will look back on the 8th of August, 2008 as the day WWIII began. Long in the planning, the defeated Lisbon Treaty faction within the EU has been pressing ahead anyway with their policy of destabilisation in the Balkans and the Caucasus.

Back in February, when the EU supported the unilateral independence of Kosovo, it was already perfectly clear that this destabilisation would not only touch the Balkan states, but was also giving the green light to every conceivable separatist movement and minority throughout the world.

Just as the war in the Balkans lead up to World War I, this ethnically complicated region is serving as a chessboard for EU geopolitical destabilisations, drawing Europe and Russia into conflict, with the ultimate aim to subsume Russia into an even more massive European super state.

Yesterday morning, an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was called at the behest of Russia. The Georgian Ambassador stated his position - that Georgia offers South Ossetia autonomy, but only along “European lines,” with international guarantees. This “European” style autonomy is the same strategy defined by the Centre for Liberal Strategies, based in Bulgaria, from where it is argued that the entire region must become a “post-modern European order,” with no nation states. As a result, they say, a clash with Russia is inevitable, because Russia “embodies the nostalgia both for the old-European nation-state, and for a European order organised around the balance of power and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states”

That Russia is the ultimate target was made clear at the end of last month in a Newsweek article by Mark Leonard, Director of the European Council On Foreign Relations. An anti-Russian propaganda piece, he rounded it off by saying “This one lingering issue [the Litvinenko affair] is but a glaring illustration of the kinds of problems Russia poses to the rest of Europe. It is therefore time for the EU to agree, at least on principle, to a common response to these shows of Russian aggression. The EU’s population is more than three times the size of Russia’s; its economy is 15 times larger. But its biggest strength lies in interdependence, solidarity and consensus. When the next crisis comes, all European states will need to be prepared.”

Clearly, some in the EU corridors of power are beginning to think like Hitler.

On the very same day, another ECFR “thinker,” Nick Whitney, released a report which argued for a group of European nations to press ahead with the establishment of the military and defense institutions envisaged by the Lisbon Treaty, thus creating a “two speed” European defense policy.

Although there is no requirement for EU countries to participate, he wrote, they then have no right to interfere with EU “pioneer group” decisions on sending troops abroad.

There should be the creation of an EU headquarters in Brussels, which would integrate civilian assets for crisis management, for example the police, with the military. (Just a few days ago, Silvio Berlusconi deployed Italian troops onto the streets of Italy, to “help police fight crime,” in what’s clearly a trial run of this policy recommendation.)

Whitney’s report calls for the consolidation of the pioneer group’s men and materiel, and the creation of a cartel of streamlined defence industries which are, he says, presently too focused on sovereign national priorities. He demands that pioneer groups of countries, with their expeditionary force capabilities, pool together around the European Defense Agency - the EU’s mini Pentagon.

Many European nations have been well aware for some time of Georgia’s intentions to attack South Ossetia. Indeed, they have been planning it. Under EU Secretary General Javier Solana’s direction, the EU organised a diplomatic group which traveled to Transdniestria, Moldova, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They arranged visits to Brussels and London by leaders they were cultivating from these so-called “unrecognised republics.”

In this effort, the EU group has been working closely with Georgia’s “Rose Revolution” leader, President Michael Saakashvili, who said himself in May: “We are the fighting ground for a new world war.”

Brian Gerrish’s latest video on Common Purpose.

The building blocks are being put in place for a war between Europe and Russia. A new report from European Council for Foreign Relations makes calls for a “two speed” European defence policy - effectively urging certain nations to proceed with one of the key tenets of the Lisbon Treaty / European Constitution without the need to wait for agreement from the rest. To hell with you, Ireland!

The report is written by ECFR Senior Fellow Nick Witney. Educated at Oxford, Witney is a career diplomat for Britain, among other things he supervised the Al Yamamah contract (BAE) for the U.K. Ministry of Defense, before becoming the first head of the European Defense Agency, the EU’s mini-Pentagon.

The report (pdf) calls for the reduction of the total number of Europeans in uniform, the reduction in “useless” military equipment such as tanks (consolidation), and the creation of a cartel of streamlined defence industries which are, he says, presently too focused on sovereign national priorities. He demands that “pioneer groups” of countries, with their expeditionary force capabilities, pool together around the EDA.

Although there is no requirement for EU countries to participate, he writes, they then have no right to interfere with EU “pioneer group” decisions on sending troops abroad.

There should be the creation of an EU headquarters in Brussels, which would integrate civilian assets for crisis management (such as police) with the military. (Are this weeks events in Italy a trial run, do you think?)

The report also urges the creation of a civilian reserve corps, to ensure the right personnel are available.

On the same day the Witney report was released, his colleague, Mark Leonard, Director of the ECFR, had an anti-Russian propaganda piece published in Newsweek. He rounded off by saying “This one lingering issue [the Litvinenko affair] is but a glaring illustration of the kinds of problems Russia poses to the rest of Europe. It is therefore time for the EU to agree, at least on principle, to a common response to these shows of Russian aggression. The EU’s population is more than three times the size of Russia’s; its economy is 15 times larger. But its biggest strength lies in interdependence, solidarity and consensus. When the next crisis comes, all European states will need to be prepared.”

Is it a coincidence that these two reports from the same think tank were published on the same day?

I think not.

In another step towards a society based upon the feudalism of the middle ages, British police have begun blocking food deliveries to the “climate camp” being held at Kingsnorth coal power station in Kent.

While the protesters’ reasons for protest are simply wrong, their right to protest is inviolable. The attempted use of hunger as a crowd control mechanism is a giant leap too far. When will the general public start getting angry about this stuff?

Meanwhile, in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi deployed more than 1000 troops on Italian streets yesterday, to “help police fight crime.” He intends to raise the number to 3000 in the near future. Will it stop there, do you think?

And the “critics” of the deployment? Giving us another example of how to narrow the public debate on any issue, they called it a “useless” “publicity stunt.”

That’s alright, then.

I find it amusing when China is criticised for censoring Internet content. It becomes clearer by the day that the “powers that be” here in Europe, and especially in the UK, would love to be able to do the same out in the open, just like China.

But one of the “great” things about living in a democracy is that the fact that I am a slave to the system is fairly well hidden. So I have the freedom to live my life with my head up my ass, in blissful ignorance of my own slavery, while my actions are policed by public opinion and the derision of my peers. Sure it’s a more convoluted technique, but, really, do the “powers that be” have any reason to be jealous?

The Guardian reports today that “the internet industry must take more responsibility for protecting young people from the ‘dark side’ of digital content relating to abuse, violence and suicide, according to a committee of MPs.”

Apparently, the committee “recommended the establishment of a self-regulatory body to create better online safeguards to protect children from being exposed to unsuitable material. The body would police websites, adjudicate on complaints and could help crack down on piracy and illegal file-sharing in Britain.”

Why? Are kids not entitled to know this stuff goes on? And where will the line be drawn? Sex? Drugs? Or, maybe, it’ll be any content which might open young people’s eyes to the truth of this Brave New World we live in.

What the hell do these MPs think qualifies my ISP to police my or my children’s Internet usage anyway? I’d have thought it’s the responsibility of parents to manage their children’s Internet time, and not some nameless, unaccountable little Hitler at an ISP?

Just another in a long line of those they want me to bend over for.

If there’s one thing I object to in the strongest terms, it’s the use of the Holocaust as a political battering ram to shut people up when they criticise fascist behaviour.

In this case, it was Brazil’s foreign minister, Celso Amorim, who, with some justification, said rich countries’ deception in trade talks reminded him of tactics used by Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.

The US delegation, led by Susan Schwab, immediately hurled her decendancy from Holocaust survivors straight back at him, in order to deflect media attention from the fact that the policies of the World Trade Organisation can quite justifiably be compared to those of the Hitler regime.

Bloody typical.

Science was recently able to announce proof that women’s brains are different to men’s. Anyone with a wife probably knows that anyway. But what science has so far not been able to prove, is whether Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary, has a brain at all.

On the 17th June, the government published the crime figures for 2007/08 (pdf). The statistics show a 12% fall in violent crime over the previous year, and yet, as part of the British government’s effort to disarm the general population of everything from guns to rolling pins, we have all been bombarded with story after story about the rise of knife related crime.

According to the British crime figures, no-one knows whether or not knife crime is more common now than in previous years, because they haven’t collected statistics on this specific area before - the numbers were rolled into the statistics for general violent crime, which as I already pointed out, are down on the previous year.

So in an effort to make certain that next year’s figures show an upward trend, Ms Smith is encouraging members of the public to intervene in knife related incidents. I can’t think of a better way to get yourself killed, which would be ideal for the propagandists at the Home Office, who would have a field day.

This government doesn’t want to see a reduction in knife related crime, or any other crime - they are using it as an just another excuse to degrade civil liberties, in the same way they use the non-existent terrorist threat.

The Guardian headlined a story yesterday with, “Policing to be put in the hands of directly elected mayors as part of radical shakeup.” The article says, “Directly elected mayors are to be given democratic control over their local police as part of a shakeup to be detailed today by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith.

So far only 12 towns and cities, including London, have directly elected mayors. Ministers hope the powers will increase the appeal of such a post.

Under the proposals, to be spelled out in a Home Office green paper on policing this afternoon, mayors such as Boris Johnson in London will become  the “new crime and policing representative” for their city, replacing the  existing police authority.”

So, what’s this all about, then?

Feudalism

Feudalism does not, as the word might suggest, require a society of kings and noblemen with peasants living in mud huts any more than to be a fascist requires the wearing of a swastika.

Rather, a feudal society is one where 95% of the population is treated like ill-fed, poorly educated (if at all) cattle, where there is no hope of a better life for the next generation, and where the top 5% live as an oligarchy, feeding off the rest via their corporations, supported by their unelected puppetmasters (think tanks, NGOs) who manage the so-called elected representatives.

Lisbon Treaty

One of the key authors of the Lisbon Treaty was Giuliano Amato, erstwhile President of Italy. In an interview with Barbara Spinelli*, printed in the Italian daily La Stampa on the 13th July, 2000, Amato explained his vision for the future:

“Frankly, I do not want a continental Europe only, without the immense patrimony of England, and of the Scandinavians linked to England. Nor would I like to lose Spain, which is skeptical of the vanguard … To have England among us would not be bad: In many ways, London is already where we would like to be. It would not be bad if England, with its experience of economic reforms, were present in the council of States belonging to the euro … Therefore I prefer to go slowly, to crumble little by little pieces of sovereignty, avoiding sudden shifts from national to federal powers … I do not believe in a federal sovereign, because our globalised universe is post-Hobbesian.”

Spinelli: “The world you describe seems to be pre-Hobbesian. It seems to precede the nation-state.”

“And why not going back the period before Hobbes?” replied Amato. “The Middle Ages had a much richer humanity, and a diversity of identity which today can be a model. The Middle Ages is beautiful: It can have its policymaking centers, without relying entirely on anyone. It is beyond the bounds of the nation-state. Today, as then, nomads are reappearing in our societies. Today, also, we have powers without territories … Without sovereignties, we will not have totalitarianism. Democracy does not need a sovereign.”

So, the idea behind the Lisbon Treaty, and surely Amato must have agreed this with the other authors, is for a return to middle ages style feudalism, which was characterised, for the vast majority, by a complete absence of human rights or justice, by short life expectancies, and by rampaging war and disease. To consider this “beautiful” is insane, is it not?

City States

Another characteristic of the middle ages, was the City State, and there lies the second front in the destruction of the nation state.

The modern drive to re-establish the City State came in April, 2006, with the “First Transatlantic Conference of Mayors,” held in Lyon, France.

Opening the conference, Denver Mayor, Wellington E Webb said, “If there is one theme that I would like to impart during this session, it is: the nineteenth century was the century of Empires. The twentieth century was the century of nationstates. The twenty-first century will be a ‘century of cities.’”

The Policy Of Dictatorship

So just as the Lisbon Treaty moves power from soveriegn nation state governments to an unelected dictatorship, the City State takes power via devolution. In combination, they leave the nation with no power of self determination, because in the end, the City State will only exist to implement the policies handed down by the unelected dictatorship.

This political architecture represents the goal of a centrally managed, global, fascist dictatorship. The key elements are being put in place slowly, but surely, and the migration of control of the police from the Police Authority to the City Mayors is just another step.

–

* The full interview can only be found by using La Stampa’s archive search. Use the search term “Europa,” change the next drop down to “Frase esatta,” change the dates to 13th July 2000, and click on Ricerca. The article is entitled “DAL SOGNO DEL PRINCIPE AL GOVERNO DI BRUXELLES DIBATTITO AMATO all’Europa non serve un sovrano” and is the first result returned.

In his book, The Impact Of Science On Society, written in 1952, Bertrand Russell wrote, “At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars … War … has hitherto been disappointing in this respect … but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full … The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it?”

Russell is expressing a view, long held by many who might be considered “oligarchs”, and who, for many generations, have held themselves to be superior to the vast majority of the population of this planet.

The simple fact is that the world is not “too full.” It might feel like it is, sometimes, as our basic economic infrastructure crumbles round our ears, and as poverty forces the people of large parts of the planet into having large families.

Today’s hikes in oil and food prices are not the result of population fuelled demand, unavailability, or as a lack of capability to produce. They are purely artificial, as the result of Policy.

And what is that Policy?

In a word: GENOCIDE.

The population of this planet is staring a dark age in the face. Culturally, we are already there. But in terms of human suffering, the period we are entering now will put all historical genocides in the shade. The policy has been stated many times: reduce the population of the planet from its present levels.

At April’s G7 meeting of finance ministers in Washington, the World Bank issued statements warning of the impoverishment of entire regions of the world as the result of the food crisis, a situation they believe will not change in the coming year.

Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, issued a statement at the same meeting, stating that the rise in food prices would be likely to nullify the fight against poverty.

As the saying goes, “no shit, Sherlock!”

These guys can make their statements with confidence, because they know of the activities of speculative kingpin, George Soros, and people like him. For those unaware, Soros was behind the near collapse of the British Pound in 1992.

Georgie has moved on from currency speculation. That form of profiteering only caused economic hardship. Today, he is aiming fairly and squarely at human death. On the 18th June, Goergie told a Budapest newspaper: “Rather than expecting energy prices to go down somehow, we should accept that it must go further up first, for us to be able to solve the [long-term] problem. Prices must go up first so as to encourage people to consume less.”

So Georgie wants us to consume less, which might be fine for you or I, who probably don’t struggle too much for our three meals a day. What happens if you are one of the several billions who only eat once per day? Do they need encouragement to consume less?

Georgie’s mechanism for pushing prices up is typified by his recent aquisition of all the commodities trading and merchandising business of the giant multi-national ConAgra Foods. This aquisition was made by a private investment fund managed by Soros Fund Management LLC, acting as part of a consortium with New York hedge fund Ospraie Management and New York asset manager General Atlantic. The $2.8 billion deal is estimated as the largest acquisition ever by a hedge fund.

The agreement includes 144 ConAgra facilities, located primarily in North America. Renamed Gavilon, the new company provides physical distribution and merchandising of grains, feed ingredients, fertilizer, and energy products; as well as agriculture, energy, and other commodity trading activities, and “risk management services” — i.e., commodity futures derivatives speculation.

It doesn’t stop there. It goes without saying that Georgie is right in there pushing biofuels. Another string to the bow, the biofuels insanity is a strategy that even the greenies don’t want. The ConAgra operations provide “procurement and marketing services” for ethanol and bio-diesel producers, supply chain infrastructure, as well as financial hedging.

Georgie’s not alone of course. Politicians and scientists have all been pushing the insanity that biofuels are the answer to the non-existent Global Warming problem.

And if Biofoolery is not enough, GM is being pushed harder than ever. GM crops are designed to reduce diversity of plant species through cross-pollenation, and more importantly, guarantee control of the food supply chain. The decades long destruction globally of small farming, to be replaced with huge factory farms planting seeds only ever purchased from Monsanto adds to that effect. We even have these two insanities of GM and biofoolery getting it together, with scientists at Michigan State University messing with the genetic makeup of corn to develop a strain that can break down its own cellulose, thus making fermentation easier, and biofuel production more efficient.

The problem for the corporations, at least in the short term, is that the risk of cross-pollenation makes GM unpopular. So until the use of GM is universally accpepted, they need to do something about that. Just another of the “conincidences” in the world, is Colony Collapse Syndrome. Bees, the little stinging insects that we depend upon to pollenate our food supply, are dying out in unprecedented numbers. Is it really a coincidence that this happens within a few years of the development of GM crops, or that certain GM crop manufacturers also happen to belong to a cartel of pharmasutical/chemical/insecticide manufacturers and have had their products banned because they are harmful to bees?

Unfortunately, they’re never too far away from releasing another product.

It can’t get much better for them, can it? Kill the bees which cause cross-pollenation, but that are also needed for the pollenation of the regular food supply. Result: global food supply crisis, and calls for GM crops which don’t need pesticides.

Increasingly now, politicians are coming out and openly pushing the Policy. For example, the heads of the World Bank and IMF met with the finance ministers of the Americas (or, at least, those that turned up) on the 23rd and 24th June. Finance ministers listened to lectures from the IMF’s Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the World Bank’s Robert Zoellick, on the dangers of giving in to the “temptation” of subsidising food and fuel and restoring protectionism, because such policies might fuel “expections of inflation.”

Delegates at the meeting were greeted with a World Bank report on the impact of rising food prices on the Americas. The report asserted that:

• food prices are “relatively low,” by historical standards
• “high food prices are here to stay”
• the cause of the high price of food is rising consumption in developing countries.

Recommended measures included “food for work” programs, and targetted cash hand-outs for extremely poor families who meet specified conditions. Any general national subsidy program, however, would be dangerous, because “it could spur inefficient consumption of these foods by non-poor households.”

The IMF’s Dominique Strauss-Kahn endorsed the World Bank report, and added a warning that governments must stop policies which are encouraging “domestic demand growth … Social protection should not be used to justify a retreat into protectionism, or a delay in measures to cool domestic demand.”

In the film “The Third Man,” by Greame Greene, there’s a classic piece of dialogue spoken by Orson Wells which Greene claimed he didn’t write, but that Wells had added. It fairly well sums up the attitude of global leaders these days. Wells’ character, Harry Lime, was a black marketeer selling corrupted stolen drugs, resulting in many deaths. The scene has Lime and his friend, Holly Martens, at the top of a Vienese ferris wheel, as he attempts to justify his activities.

“Look down there,” he said, “Would you feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand for every dot that stopped - would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money? Or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man? free of income tax. it’s the only way to save money nowadays.”

Yesterday evening’s ITV news reported that the majority of British people see David Cameron as more of a leader than Gordon Brown. This view is echoed by the Telegraph, which seems to be leading the anti-Brown campaign these days.

The Telegraph, that City of London mouthpiece, wants to get rid of the “weak kneed” Fabian, because they see Cameron as the “tough guy” who will steer Britain through the austerity needed to deal with the collapsing economy, and push imperialist provocations abroad. In an effort to bolster Cameron’s chances by questioning Brown’s capabilities when the going gets tough, the Telegraph’s Ambrose Prichard has been amazingly honest about the state of the economy, with a steady stream of doom and gloom articles in recent weeks and months.

Prichard’s honesty is echoed from time to time by other City of London mouthpieces. Jacques Attali, writing on the 3rd of January in the French financial weekly, L’Express, said “It is the whole world which seems to be going over the precipice … as if a collision of trains going at full speed was being prepared. As if, in a vortex emptying the bottom of a bathtub … [T]here is no stability in sight for the global economy.”

He went on, “Beyond the subprimes, many other debts are circulating and no one knows how the banks will be able to honor them: those of hedge funds, of monoline insurers, of LBO funds, and of holders of credit cards, which form a pyramid amounting to much more than the bank’s own funds, which would have been closed a long time ago, had the central banks not agreed to refinance them all without restraint.”

However, unlike Prichard, Attali dared to identify the link between the proceeding financial collapse and the eruption of chaos in an increasing number of nations of this planet. “That the murder of an opposition leader of a country of the South [Pakistan] would so gravely shake the Asian financial markets, and with them those of the entire world, reveals the extreme fragility of the planet.”

Attali is not the only commentator to notice a link between financial collapse and increasing chaos. In his homily for the Feast of Epiphany, the Pope said “It cannot be said that globalisation is synonymous with world order, it is the opposite. Conflicts for world order and the pillaging of [natural] resources, water, and raw materials make the work of those who strive for a just and fair world, all the more difficult.”

And in South Africa, Thabo Mbeki’s mother, wrote in a letter to the South African people, published in the Johannesburg Sunday Times. “The anarchic tendencies that have taken root in the ANC lately,” she wrote, “coupled with the blatant disrespect towards the highest office in the land, raise high suspicions of a Third Force in operation … South Africa wake up. Zemk’iinkomo Magwala Ndini!” (The cattle are being stolen, you bloody cowards!)

The question is, who is stealing the cattle?

Since the summer, it is estimated that $1.5 trillion in bank assets have been wiped off the books, and an equal amount of equity has evaporated on world stock markets. The idea that the crisis can be “solved” by hyperinflationary injections of cash is insane. If anything the crisis is only going to get worse, with a collapse of the insurance sector and a popping of the derivatives bubble.

And it is in this context that the globally increasing levels of assassination, ethnic cleansing, tribal conflict and general chaos, can be understood. None of these is a local or regional event. They are all part of a single strategy aimed at one objective: the destruction of nation states resulting in the consolidation of the raw material wealth of the planet, in the hands of City of London based private cartels - today’s British Empire.

It’s not hard to see the shape of the “invisible” British Empire if you shine a light in the right places:

• Virtually all the offshore financial centres that dominate this globalised, deregulated planet, are located in British or Dutch colonies, like the Cayman Islands, the Dutch Antilles, the Isle of Man, the Grand Bahamas, etc.

• Britain has a history of working closely with the raw materials cartels, through the private mercenary industry, particurly Executive Outcomes, Sandline, Defence Systems Ltd. These cartels already own the lion’s share of the precious metal wealth of Africa, Australia, and South America.

• British counterinsurgency methods, pioneered during the 18th and 19th Century heyday of the British East India Company, are still practiced on a global scale, by British intelligence operatives and “former” officers, now operating under private cover. In fact, it could be argued that the privatation of large sections of the Ministry of Defence and the secret services in recent years is just a reversal of the nationalisation of the British East India company and its intelligence organisation begun by Lord Shelburne.

• The Commonwealth, made up of 53 nations spanning the globe, accounting for one-fifth of the land mass of the Earth, and a very high percentage of its strategic resources and population. Though nominally an alliance of independent states, the Commonwealth was founded in the late 19th Century as a perpetuation of the British Empire.

“If you’re looking for the origins of Kenya’s ethnic tensions, look to its colonial past,” wrote Africa specialist Caroline Elkins in the Washington Post on the 6th of January. “Far from leaving behind democratic institutions and cultures, Britain bequeathed to its former colonies corrupted and corruptible governments … Added to this was a distinctly colonial view of the rule of law, which saw the British leave behind legal systems that facilitated tyranny, oppression and poverty rather than open, accountable governments. And compounding these legacies was Britain’s famous imperial policy of ‘divide and rule,’ playing one side off another, which often turned fluid groups of individuals into immutable ethnic units, much like Kenya’s Luo and Kikuyu today … We are often told that age-old tribal hatreds drive today’s conflicts in Africa. In fact, both ethnic conflict and its attendant grievances are colonial phenomena … Britain was determined to protect its economic and geopolitical interests during the decolonisation process … It’s not hard to discern similar patterns … in other former British colonies such as Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Iraq that share similar imperial pasts.”

It is the apparatus of the British Empire that has been unleashed, all around the globe, to foment chaos and provoke warfare. Global assymetric warfare, in combination with a global financial and economic collapse, is the last phase in the great game which will bring about the New World Order.

Italian authorities have arrested Jorge Nestor Fernandez Troccoli, a retired officer of the Uruguayan Navy. Troccoli was wanted in Uruguay, because of his role in Operation Condor, the plan for the extermination of political opponents of military dictatorships in South America in the 1970s. Troccoli’s book, entitled The Rage of the Leviathan, brags of his role in these events.

Operation Condor was born in the office of the Chilean secret police DINA in 1975, under Augusto Pinochet. Lasting until 1977, at least 13,000 people were killed. Several hundred thousand more were imprisoned in concentration camps.

Italian prosecutors have issued further arrest warrants for 146 citizens of Chile, Argentina, Brasil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia (four of whom are dead), including former Argentinian leaders Rafael Videla, Emilio Eduardo Massera, former Montevideo dictator Jorge Maria Bordaberry, and former DINA chief Manuel Contreras.

Many of the victims of Operation Condor were of Italian origin. As a result of lawsuits brought in Italy by relatives, prosecutor Giancarlo Capaldo launched a nine year investigation, culminating in these warrants.

According to UPI, “the prosecutor said the United States was aware of Operation Condor but did not participate in it.”

Perhaps, although the CIA’s admission of participation in the pre-Condor plot to get Pinochet into power in the first place was covered in an Associated Press article entitled “CIA acknowledges involvement in Allende’s overthrow, Pinochet’s rise.”

According to Global Vision, a eurosceptic think tank, 73% of British voters want a referendum on the EU treaty constitution. What a surprise.

Sadly, we won’t get what we wish for, because the UK is not a democracy. Its an Oligarchy, where a small, unelected, ruling class tells our elected representatives what to say and what to do. Our representatives’ job is to represent the policies of the Oligarchy to us, the voters. Those that do the best sales pitch, and make the most progress pushing forward the Oligarch’s agenda, get elected next time round.

Waken up, folks! There’s nothing an Oligarchy fears more than a politically active public. Don’t lie down and except this!

Apparently Gordon Brown feels we Brits are having far too good a time, what with rising inflation and falling house prices, so he decided to pass along some of his misery. He trotted out Jacqui Smith yesterday in a cynical attempt to divert attention from his own troubles by scaring the crap out of everyone.

Apparently, some people in Slovakia were recently arrested for dealing in Uranium, so that means there’s going to be a dirty bomb attack in the UK.

Unfortunately for Brown, if the Daily Mail is at all representative, no-one’s buying it. 53 comments, and all but one expresses a desire that he sticks his propaganda up his arse.

You gotta feel sorry for him, no?

Well, no, actually.

In Sunday’s Observer, Henry Porter wrote: “Welcome to Fortress Britain, a fortress that will keep people in as well as out. Welcome to a state that requires you to answer 53 questions before you’re allowed to take a day trip to Calais. Welcome to a country where you will be stopped, scanned and searched at any of 250 railways stations, filmed at every turn, barked at by a police force whose behaviour has given rise to a doubling in complaints concerning abuse and assaults.”

“How have we allowed this rolling putsch against our freedom?” he went on to say. “Where are the principled voices from left and right, the outrage of playwrights and novelists, the sit-ins, the marches, the swelling public anger? We have become a nation that tolerates a diabetic patient collapsed in a coma being tasered by police, the jailing of a silly young woman for writing her jihadist fantasies in verse and an illegal killing by police that was prosecuted under health and safety laws.”

Henry Porter asks good questions. Lets investigate.

In 1990, a quarter of a million people protested against the Poll Tax, a system of local government taxation which Margaret Thatcher attempted to foist on the British people. Although the Poll Tax contributed to her downfall, the Conservative government, led my John Major, stuck their fingers up at the British people and introduced the Council Tax in 1993. “Oh, alright then,” the British people said.

In 2003, I watched a million people protest against the Iraq war. I continued to watch as a month or so later, Tony Bliar stuck two fingers up at a million people and went to war in Iraq. “Oh, alright then,” the British people said.

At the last general election, the Labour government made, as a manifesto promise, the guarantee that there would be a referendum on the European Constitution. Now that the constitution has been abandoned, they have decided to call it a treaty instead. People are complaining bitterly that Labour are not keeping their promise for a referendum, but they have learned their lesson, and aren’t putting up much of a fight. Nonetheless, Gordon Brown is sticking his fingers up at the British people and will push the treaty through Parliament. “Oh, alright then,” the British people will say.

In 1951, Bertrand Russell wrote a book called “The Impact Of Science On Society” which may go some way to explaining our behaviour.

“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology,” he wrote. “Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education.’ Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part … It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.”

“The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.”

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Russell’s predictions are uncannily correct. Its almost as if he was outlining a strategy. It should be noted though, that although he predicted the use of “education” as a conditioning mechanism, the destruction of the family unit, and the mind numbing effect of modern music, he could not foresee the effects of “celebrity,” of “social networking,” or of computer games.

These days, people are spending all their time living in a fantasy world, scared to look out at the real world in case they notice just how shit it is. For a while there, it looked like we were wakening up to the scams our “ruling class” pull on us, but along came MySpace and Facebook to send us all straight back to sleep.

We really are living in The Matrix.

The British press, especially the BBC, is full of Global Warming nonsense at the moment, due to the release of the IPCC report (pdf warning).

According to the propaganda, humanity doesn’t have the technology to deal with this problem today. Oops. I’m told, therefore, that I’m going to have to find a way to reduce my household energy use by up to 40%. My small business is going to be subject to new “standards” and “certifications.” I’m going to be subject to new taxes. All this, on top of the other restrictions on my behaviour imposed by the other great dictatorial initiative, the “war on terror.”

This lack of available technology is the biggest lie of them all. We DO have the technology to deal with CO2 emissions, TODAY!

The answer is … wait for it … nuclear. Yes, that demon of the 20th century has the capability to rid us of our CO2 emissions within a matter of a few years. And yet, I can hear the same environmental lobby that is pushing the CO2 lie so hard screaming at me that nuclear power is unsafe, it produces horrible waste products which cannot be dealt with. Another lie.

Some Facts About Nuclear

• It would take 2 million grams of oil, or 3 million grams of coal, to equal the power contained in 1 gram of uranium fuel.
• Unlike oil and coal, nuclear fuel is recyclable.
• Modern reactor designs are safe - Chernobyl would not be possible, no matter how badly managed the facility.
• In a breeder reactor, more fuel can be produced than is used up.
• Unlike any other form of energy production, the cost of waste disposal and recycling is built into the cost of the energy.

The environmentalist fear of nuclear energy is irrational, just as is their fear of climate change. The best way to overcome this type of irrational fear is through knowledge. So, read on, overcome your fears if you have them, and maybe you’ll come to question the motives of the priests of the global warming religion.

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle

At the beginning of the nuclear age, it was assumed that nations would complete the fuel cycle, including the processing of spent fuel, so as to get as near to 100% use of the uranium fuel as possible. There are seven main steps in this cycle:

First, naturally occurring Uranium is mined. Although we have enough sources of Uranium for today’s immediate needs, we would soon have to accelerate the development of fast breeder reactors if we were to use nuclear power as the central thrust of our climate change strategy. Fast breeder reactors produce more fuel than they consume in operation.

Next the uranium is processed and milled into uranium oxide, U3O8, called yellowcake, which is the raw material for fission fuel.

The concentrated uranium is then converted to uranium hexaflouride, UF6, which is heated into a gas to make it suitable for enrichment.

Natural uranium has one primary isotope, U-238, which is not fissionable, and a much smaller amount of U-235, which is. As a result, the uranium fuel must go through a process of enrichment, to increase the ration of fissionable U-235 to the non-fissionable U-238.

Once the enriched uranium is separated from the depleted uranium, it is converted from UF6 into uranium dioxide and fabricated into uniform pellets. The pellets are loaded into long tubes made from zirconium alloy, which captures very few neutrons. The fuel is then transported to the reactor site.

Fuel rods are used for about four and a half years before replacement. When removed from the reactor, the spent fuel is put into cooling pools, which shield it as short lived nuclides decay. Within a year, the radioactivity is only about 12% of what it was when the fuel rod came out of the reactor. This spent fuel contains between 90 and 96 percent usable uranium. It also contains about 1% plutonium, a fuel suitable for breeder reactors.

The spent fuel rods are sent for reprocessing, a process which removes the highly radioactive fission products (3%), and separate out the fissionable U-235 (96%) and the plutonium (1%). Aside from being used in breeder reactors, the plutonium can be used to make mixed 0xide fuel (MOX), which some of the world’s reactors are being converted to use as fuel.

Dealing With Waste

Reprocessing vastly reduces the quantity of waste from nuclear fission. Only 3% of the material sent for reprocessing is unusable High Level Waste. That’s approximately 750kgs from a 1000MW reactor. Read that again - 750 kilogrammes.

This 750 kgs of material is normally incorporated into solid blocks of borosilicate glass, in a process known as vitrification.

Vitrification produces a stable solid that has the high-level waste incorporated its structure. That 750kgs of waste from a 1000MW reactor is contained in 5 tonnes of such glass, which can be readily transported and stored, with appropriate shielding.

There is a cooling period of about 50 years between removal from the reactor and disposal, with the conditioned HLW being retained in interim storage. The level of radioactivity and heat fall rapidly in the first few years and is down to about one thousandth of the level at discharge by 40 years. Many countries are developing plans for disposal of HLW in geological repositories buried in stable rock formations hundreds of metres beneath the surface, although there is currently no pressing technical need to establish such facilities, as the total volume of such wastes is relatively small.

So if we reprocess, how much waste is produced each year? The UK generating capacity is presently about 70GW. In one year, therefore, we would produce 53 tonnes of high level waste if we were completely nuclear. At any one time, based on a 50 year cycle before this waste can be vitrified, we would be storing close to 3000 tonnes of HLW, equivalent to approx 450,000 litres. To put that in perspective, it compares to 5.5 billion litres of oil based fuels stored in the UK at any one time. I think even the UK has enough space that waste could be stored without being in someone’s back yard.

Useful By-products Of Nuclear Energy Generation

• Fresh water
• Hydrogen (pdf warning)
  
• Oxygen
• Precious metals such as palladium, rhodium, and ruthenium (pdf warning)
• Radioisotopes for medicine

A World Based Around Nuclear Energy

The propaganda pushed upon me recently by the BBC and others, promotes a world where I must save energy, reduce my “carbon footprint.” This is a world which will devolve scientifically and technologically. It’s a world of slavery, where everything I do is taxed to “offset” my use of energy. It is a world where 3rd world countries are not permitted to develop, and where people continue to starve due to biofoolery. It is a world where the rich get richer by blowing bubbles.

I would much rather see a world of technological progress, where third world countries are encouraged to develop into modern nation states. Where fighting wars for raw materials are a thing of the past. Where huge areas of desert are irrigated and turned into workable land. Where I can travel to London in 15 minutes, with trains running every 5. Where I can breathe the air without choking, where the birds don’t have to shout because of the traffic noise. Where goods are transported out of sight, so we don’t have road congestion.

So whether or not you are a fully signed up member of the Church of Climate Change, I urge you to consider the motivations of those who say that nuclear power does not provide us with the one and only presently existing solution to our carbon dioxide “problem.” Because its unlikely that they believe their own hype.

Speaking in front of Moscow’s St Basil’s Cathedral in Red Square on Sunday, Vladimir Putin has cautioned against “those who wish to rule over all of mankind.”

Mr Putin told a group of military cadets and youth group members that while “an overwhelming majority of people in the world” are friendly toward Russia, there are some who “keep saying to this day that our nation should be split”.

“Some believe that we are too lucky to possess so much natural wealth, which they say must be divided,” Mr Putin said.

“These people have lost their mind,” he added with a smile.

There are people who “would like to build a unipolar world and rule over all of mankind”. He said any attempt to establish a unipolar world was doomed to fail.

“Nothing of this kind has ever occurred in our planet’s history, and I don’t think it will ever happen,” he said.

Contrary to the Scotsman’s assertion that these comments were directed at the United States, I would say its much more likely he was referring to certain people within the United Kingdom.

On the 6th November, the European Commission is to propose (pdf warning) that data is collected on anyone flying into or out of the EU. The data to be collected is almost exactly the same as that being collected under the controversial EU-US PNR scheme. Every passenger’s data is to be subject to a “risk assessment” which could lead to questioning or refusal of entry. The data is to be kept for 5 years (EU-US scheme is 7 years) and then for a further 8 years in a “dormant” database (the same as the EU-USA scheme).

It should be noted that this is a proposal for legislation by the Commission which the Council - in its secret working parties - can change at will (and ignore European Parliament’s opinion under “consultation”).

So here we have another proposal from a non-elected body, which our elected representatives can’t change, which could be extended arbitrarily to include every EU citizen, and which places everyone under suspicion without any right to know how the data is being used or to whom the data is given for further processing.

Democracy’s great, isn’t it?

Dennis Kucinich, Demotratic Congressman for Ohio, announced yesterday that he will be offering a privileged resolution in the House of Representatives next week, probably on the 6th of November. The resolution will bring articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney, contrary to the wishes of Kucinich’s boss in the House, Nancy Pelosi.

Kucinich said in his press release, “The momentum is building for impeachment. Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power. Despite this groundswell of opposition to the unconstitutinal conduct of office, Vice President Cheney continues to violate the U.S. Constitution by insisting the power of the Executive Branch is supreme. The Congress must hold the Vice President accountable. The American people need to let Members of Congress known how they feel about this. The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate for a continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran. If the Vice President is successful, his actions will ensure decades of disastrous consequences.”

The press release reports that the privileged resolution has priority status for consideration on the House floor. Once introduced, the resolution has to be brought to the floor within two legislative days, although the House could act on it immediately. Kucinich is expected to bring it to the House floor on Tuesday, 6th November.

H. Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President, sponsored by Kucinich, has 21 cosponsors.

The Miami Herald reports that Blackwater is to be “phased out” of “diplomatic duty” in Iraq. First time I’ve heard it called that …

They are to be replaced by those bast … ions of diplomatic relations, either Dyncorp or Triple Canopy.

For those that don’t know, Sourcewatch has this to say about Dyncorp:

“Kathryn Bolkovac, a United Nations International Police Force monitor, filed a lawsuit in Britain in 2001 against DynCorp for firing her after she reported that Dyncorp police trainers in Bosnia were paying for prostitutes and participating in sex trafficking. Many of the Dyncorp employees were forced to resign under suspicion of illegal activity. But none were (sic) prosecuted, since they enjoy immunity from prosecution in Bosnia.”

…

“In January 2007, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen Jr., reported that ‘he had identified tens of millions of dollars worth of accounting discrepancies, missing weapons and unauthorized billings’ by DynCorp. Bowen accused DynCorp of ‘lax accounting and monitoring procedures.’”

And they say this about Triple Canopy:

“Triple Canopy is currently the defendent in a lawsuit filed by three former employees who worked for Triple Canopy under a contract for KBR. Former Army Ranger Shane Schmidt and former Marine Charles L. Sheppard III claim in the lawsuit that on July 8, 2004, while en route to the Baghdad airport, their shift leader declared he was ‘going to kill someone today’ and shortly afterwards stepped out of the vehicle and fired rounds of his M4 rifle through the windshield of a stopped truck.

The suit goes on to claim the shift leader said, ‘This didn’t happen, understand?’ Soon after, the shift leader stated he had ‘never shot anyone with my handgun before” and then fired his handgun through the windshield of a parked taxi, killing the driver.’”

I’m sure these guys will do a much better job than Blackwater did.