Oh Dear It's Raining! Oh Look The Bank's Gone Broke!
TEN MYTHS AND FALLACIES OF CAPITALIST ECONOMICS

"The most remarkable thing about the world is that you can understand
it."
(Albert Einstein.)

Introduction
When it comes to trying to understand what is happening in the world
today in economic terms, most even highly intelligent people throw up
their hands in despair or repeat some gem of meaningless wisdom they
heard from a television news economics correspondent or a "City
analyst."
Much of mainstream and popular political discussion and argument is
arbitrary and debatable because it is not based on any substance or
real evidence.
A political argument or conviction needs substance. A strong
emotional feeling or passionate belief in something is not enough,
and will always be countered by people with an equally strong feeling
or belief. And I think part of the reason that we on the political
left are not as effective as we should be at getting our message
across, gathering not just mass support, but mass political decision,
political activity, political effectiveness, is that our conviction
is largely emotive moral rhetoric. This is essentially because our
argument is not based on a philosophy of political substance,
economic fact and historical evidence; and is therefore so easily
countered; leaving people just as confused and in doubt and unable to
make any informed politically effective decision.
Much of the mind-bending confusion for most people is in the
meticulous careful and effective ideological use of words and
terminology used in our education and media, making it full of
euphemistic or coded words and terms, such as: "the free
world", "freedom" and "democracy", the "free market", the "market
economy", "the international community."
These terms convey false notions to the uninitiated. They are also
esoteric for the initiated, as they are largely coded terminology for
capitalism and the making and maximisation of private profit for the
relatively few.
Capitalism is very sensitive about its intrinsic negative image; and
tries to market itself as beneficial to everybody when in fact it is
not. It benefits only a very small percentage of people.
As if shameful at its own name, capitalism painstakingly avoids using
the very word "capitalist," or "imperialist," because these terms not
only imply their real hidden aims and effects – the predatory
exploitation of other people's wealth; but also invite looking for
alternatives – socialism, communism.
This has been for an obvious political reason.
"Marx's great achievement was to place the system of capitalism on
the defensive."
(US publisher and writer Charles Madison.)
Just as Darwin's theory of evolution was an anathema to the political
power of the church, classical economic theory, developed from the
work of David Ricardo and Adam Smith by Marx into a thoroughly
scientific analytical theory, which completely lays bare and exposes
the real workings of capitalism, that although there is still the
Tories' beloved Adam Smith Institute, Marx's exposition and
explanation of capitalist economics has made Marx a bogey equal to
Darwin among creationists.
Whenever you hear the government or media speak of the "free
world", "freedom" or "democracy", "the economy", "the
market", "market forces", "business", "the international
community"or "human rights", if you substitute the word capitalism,
you'll find it fits every time, betraying their real meaning.
When they speak of freedom, which of course at face value is
acceptable to everybody because it is universally received as meaning
freedom for all; when of course it doesn't mean that at all. What
they really mean is the national and global predatory freedom of
capital to exploit human labour.
So instead of capitalism, they use euphemisms like "the economy",
the "market economy", the "free market", and they love hammering home
to us in every speech about international or global issues with
references to terms like "freedom" and "the free world."
"And the word is capitalism. We are too mealy-mouthed. We fear the
word capitalism is unpopular. So we talk about the "free enterprise
system" and run to cover in the folds of the flag and talk about the
American way of life."
(US diplomat, Eric Allen Johnston, New York Times Jan 26 1958.)
"A research report of the United States Information Agency has
ruefully discovered that the more our propaganda advertises the
virtues of 'capitalism' and attacks 'socialism', the less the world
likes us... Capitalism is a dirty word to millions of non-Marxists...
Most foreigners apparently don't regard 'capitalism' as descriptive
of an efficient economy or a safeguard of individual
rights... 'Capitalism', abroad, is frequently a pejorative word.
Efforts to purge it of negative connotations by phrases
like 'people's capitalism' have failed."
("Should the Old Labels be Changed?" New York Times, July 6 1964.)
A good example of this deliberate diversionary confusion is when the
media, which of course itself is capitalist owned, comes up with
meaningless reasoning whenever it reports economic events such as
a "downturn" in the economy. It comes up with un-thought-out
platitudes such as: The economy is growing/ falling. Prices have gone
up. People are starving because of the rise in world food prices.
It's the rise in oil prices. The housing market is shrinking.
Unemployment is rising. The stock market was looking gloomy earlier
today but picked up later. Profits have gone up/ down this quarter.
This or that rate/ index has gone up/ down/ stabilised.
All they are saying is that price rises cause price rises. A circular
attempt at economic "theory" which merely says that prices determine
prices! It's like saying that temperature determines heat.
When apportioning blame it is equally diversionary. Usually it's
working people and their unions wanting too high a price for their
labour, thus "pricing themselves out of the market. Nothing is said
about capitalists and shareholders' demanding higher profits pricing
themselves out of the market.
No. Prices do not go up. Somebody puts them up. Millionaire business
owners and shareholders want to maintain and increase their standard
of living, as well as ensure the continuation of their political
dominance.
They don't put it this way: This or that company has put their prices
up, the shareholders are demanding and taking more profits. That's a
bad image for capitalism and must be avoided.
Various attempts to fool people into thinking that capitalism is for
everybody, include Margaret Thatcher's absurd and impossible notion
of "people's capitalism" and Tony Blair's equally
nonsensical "stakeholders' Society", which is exactly the same thing.
Both are contradictions in terms, since all cannot be capitalists or
stakeholders. Only a relatively few can. If all were owners or
stakeholders of the nation's capital, then it would by its very
nature be socialism or communism. Only a very small minority can be
capitalists and make private profit from the labour of the rest of
society.
Capitalism makes no sense logically, or in terms of efficiency. It
has one sole aim – the creation of private profit out of socialised
labour. The capitalist socio-economic system is opposed and objected
to on moral, humanitarian and scientific grounds. Capitalism is
completely undemocratic. It is ruthlessly exploitative of the working
peoples of the world, it is predatory and bellicose, completely by
passing all human rights. It is immoral, dishonest, corrupt and
criminal; it creates and perpetuates poverty, it is grossly
inefficient, wasteful of natural and human resources, it damages the
environment for the sake of private profit; most essentially, it
divides society into two opposing socio-economic classes – owner of
capital and therefore of the product and the profit, and the owner of
labour, whose product is appropriated by the capitalist as his own
profit and increased capital to exploit labour anew. Capitalism is
anarchistic, unorganised, with boom and slump – massive productive
capacity one minute, and over-production of unsellable commodities
and mass unemployment the next. It is globally impoverishing,
creating and increasing existing massive global poverty, unemployment
and homelessness.
The media and politicians love to use the word "globalism", which
means nothing more than a code word for an imperialism which
completely by-passes national sovereignty. Imperialism does not see
or recognise sovereign states or national boundaries, and is in fact
a sovereign state all to itself – a global New World Order:
"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest
this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the
local nation states of the world."
(Professor Arnold Toynbee, Institute for the Study of International
Affairs, June l931.)
"The first and foremost requirement of the United States in a world
in which it proposes to hold unquestionable power… to secure the
limitation of any exercise of sovereignty by foreign nations that
constitutes a threat to the minimum world area essential for the
security and economic prosperity of the United States."
(Economic and Financial Group of the US Council of Foreign Relations.
1940.)
"The New World Order will have to be built... in the end run around
national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece…"
(US Council on Foreign Relations, April l974.)
"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all
states will recognize a single, global authority. National
sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
(US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot, Time, July 20, l992.)
Most pointedly, capitalism, even when it is riding high on a boom,
has proved itself helplessly unable to solve a single problem in the
world. Except for the benefit of a powerful and rich minority, it
creates and increases poverty for an increasing overwhelming majority
of humanity on this vast and incredibly rich earth.
After some three centuries of capitalism, some 85 percent of the
world's population, the overwhelming majority of humanity, still
lives under conditions of starvation and poverty. Millions still
starve to death, millions of children sigh their last feeble breath
as they let go of life in their first year. Millions are homeless and
jobless and suffer needless poverty and ill health. Millions are
denied the most basic human rights, to medical care and education –
all this in a world of abundance. Ignorance, prejudice and hypocrisy
replies that they come from a poor country. We must always reply to
the ignorant, the prejudiced and the hypocritical that on the
contrary, they come from a very rich world.
Capitalism has proved itself not only completely unable to solve a
single socio-economic problem in the world, but also unable to offer
any vision of any future. All it can offer is more of the same, only
not so good!
Capitalism is inherently ultimately unsustainable as a socio-economic
system. It only survives as dependent on continually expanding
markets for its output, continually advancing technology, and
expanding exploration and devouring of ever cheaper labour and raw
materials from the poorest regions of the world, usually propped up
only by use of well funded and armed despotic dictators. Should that
fail, as it will, it is ultimately only sustainable by military
invasion and occupation of other lands.
Capitalism on a global scale – imperialism, has long ago, I guess
wildly, at some time around, or as an immediate result of the Second
World War, effectively peaked; and has since only been running on
borrowed time. Hence, it is in its most dangerous phase, since it is
intrinsic in capitalism's unsustainability that it will continue only
to generally deteriorate and ultimately fizzle out as a spent force.
Capitalism is in its most dangerous phase. Unless this is understood
and acted upon by the whole of humanity, the consequences could be
many times more catastrophic than the period of the global but so-
called Wall Street, crash of 1929, through the depression, the rise
of Nazism, the Second World War, and Hiroshima – the first act of a
possible, now nuclear, Third World War.
(See also: FROP TROPF, below.)
Simple questions reveal the illogicality and historical
imprognosability of the mere wishful thinking, not only that
capitalism is here to stay; but that it is the peak of human social
and political development and the only possible future for the
advancement of mankind on this earth.
But world poverty is still with us and increasing rapidly after some
three centuries of this "best of all worlds" capitalism.
They say the socialist systems, in existence for seventy years, are
not working. But 85 percent of humanity is still poor and hungry
after three centuries of this wonderful capitalism. But they do not
say that capitalism has failed or isn't working!
As I write, in September - October 2008, world news is ablaze with
the hope that the US Government will provide a several hundred
billion dollar "rescue package" to prevent global economic collapse.
Wait a minuite! So capitalism, including the United States of
America, arguably the richest and most powerful capitalist nation on
earth, with its overwhelming global economic, political and military
power, its ability to crush and destroy any nation on earth overnight
just by squeezing it to death by mere economic means, with its vast
technical and scientific knowledge, ability and experience, its
control of global resources and cheap labour, its 300 years of
practice and experience, from the British industrial revolution
through colonialism, to American imperialism, all this combined vast
and overwhelming economic power, and virtually unlimited productive
power and capacity, which could solve all the problems of the world,
is now telling us that we cannot do anything because we have to stop
producing because nobody can make a profit out of it!
How revealingly ridiculous!
Capitalism is completely out of ideas, it has no plans and cannot
offer any vision of any future.
"Today, as never before, we are engaged in a fierce battle of ideas…
It is time to reorganise USIA [United States Information Agency B.M.]
as an important component of the American foreign affairs community.
Indeed, USIA is on the cutting edge of the struggle for men's minds."
(US Information Agency Director Charles Wick, requesting $711.4
million for USIA's 1984 "Project Democracy" from the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, March 1983,
"A major criticism... of our programme in the field of information
and propaganda is the failure to formulate a definite, conscious
purpose... Slogans like the 'Four Freedoms' are not enough… We are in
a war of ideas, but we have not found our ideas...  the rich and
powerful United States has offered no inspirational idea or positive
social programme."
(Princeton University Professor John B. Whitton (Ed) in "Propaganda
and the Cold War.")
"It is the imperialists who need weapons, since they are completely
devoid of ideas… Ideas don't need weapons, if they can win the masses
over to their cause. No one can think that the contradiction between
capitalism and socialism can be settled by force. You'd have to be
out of your mind to think that way, and that's the way the
imperialists think. That's why they have military bases all over the
world, threaten everybody and intervene everywhere. Where are the
socialist countries' military bases?"
(Fidel Castro.)
The only view capitalist ideologists can provide us with is that the
economy is to be regarded as some amorphous entity with a volition of
its own, which nobody can control, like the weather. Nobody does
anything. Economic events just happen. Everything is going along just
fine, just like in the 1960s when we all had fridges and washing
machines and cars and full employment. Then suddenly, whoops!, along
comes a "downturn" in the economy. It's a nuisance but it just
happens and there's nothing we can do about it. Oh dear it's raining!
Oh look the bank's gone broke!

Ten Myths and Fallacies of Economics, Democracy and Freedom in the
Capitalist World.
The capitalist lie is believed because it is repeated so many times
in so many ways to so many un-discerning people.
It is time to explode the myths.
Capitalist economic theory, ideology and values do not stand up to
the simplest logical examination when you think of the right
questions to ask.
The main overall question, formulated in all its forms here below,
that capitalist economic ideology has no sensible answer for other
that pure mythology, is, where does profit actually come from?
Adam Smith in his famous classical economic work "The Wealth of
Nations" pointed out labour as the source of economic wealth, which
was subsequently elaborated and fully explained by Marx's "Labour
Theory of Value."
Not to be beaten, our bourgeois (French: capital owning class)
economists dreamed up all sorts of theories, such as: value is
determined by supply and demand. When Marx pointed out that although
supply and demand have a temporary effect on prices, they could not
possibly determine the value of a product.
The bourgeois economists then concocted a theory called 'utility
value.' When Marx knocked the bottom out of that argument, capitalist
economists wheeled out their MkII version: 'marginal utility value',
an equally unscientific, idealistic and illogical value theory.
(See FROP TROPF below.)
Bourgeois economists have searched for over a century for a theory
that refutes or rejects the labour theory of value. They will not
find any such theory. It is an impossibility – like trying to refute
or deny the theory of gravity.
Then after much mumbling and squawking, our capitalist economic
wizards came up with a solution which solved all their problems: they
did without a theory of value altogether! And left everything to the
inadequate vagaries and uncertainties of some entity they call 'the
market.'
Since then they have paraded in front of us Messrs. Keynes, Friedman,
Hayek and Monetarism, and other ideologists, "City analysts",
economics Professors and flamboyant academic misfits in bow ties and
multi-coloured waistcoats wheeled out as television news "economics
correspondents." You can see them on late night armchair television
academic discussion programs – all with their absurd theories
producing no more sense than the 1960s government economic research
institute which built a flow machine with coloured water and various
vessels and ducts and pipes and regulatory valves to see how the
economy can be tweaked and tinkered with, adjusting this or that
percentage of economic or financial rate, in a futile attempt to
achieve "economic balance," whatever that was supposed to mean. They
did discover the important theory that if you pour a litre each of
green, blue, black and white water into their machine you can produce
four litres of dirty brown water; but nobody would buy it (the theory
or the water). It probably ended up rusting away in some university
equipment store or as the first on-street soft drinks dispenser.
In current (October 2008) television news coverage of what they are
calling the "credit crunch," commentators of all kinds from academic
economists to bankers, experts in industry and government on finance
and "the economy", are discussing all sorts of wildly differing
theories on the cause, diagnosis, prognosis and cure for the current
economic problem – all with blank whistful stares into the distance
vaguely uttering as much essence as football managers analysing why
they lost the last match and what they need to do to win the next
one. They say absolutely nothing. They are absolutely clueless.
Just briefly here, a few simple experiments, tests, questions – call
them what you like – disprove all capitalist economic theories that
the whole of capitalist economic ideology and philosophy is based on.
It also explains why capitalist society is always in a total chaotic
and contradictory muddle.
Essential notes on terminology:
Before we go further, some items of terminology have to be clarified,
since they have erroneous received meanings and connotations.
It is important to know that the Marxist term working class has a
specific definition.
It has nothing to do with the British Registrar General's meaningless
and misleading delineation of class into several social classes such
as manual workers, office workers, middle class, professionals, upper
class, aristocracy and so on. This is a false and deliberately
misleading notion of social class permeating capitalist social
studies and sociology syllabuses and the media and the predominant
public view.
Marxist analysis of class relations in capitalist society reveals the
only operating class division as between only two economic classes –
owners of capital and owners of labour.
Working class means all those – the majority of people – who labour
by hand or by brain for the minority capitalist class.
What the Marxist term class struggle recognises is so schoolboy
obvious when you consider that the interests of the two classes are
diametrically opposite and mutually contradictory. The interest of a
capitalist is to pay as little as possible for land, raw materials
and wages, and sell for as much profit as possible. Whereas the
interest of the working class is to be paid as much wages as possible
for their labour, and to buy the means of subsistence at as low
prices as possible.
Here it is also essential to counter a common myth about what Marxist
economics is.
Marxism is not about communism. Marx himself hardly mentions the
word. Marxist economics is not what goes on in socialist (or
communist) countries; it is nothing to do with that. Marx's main
achievement in economics is a thorough examination, analysis and
explanation of the workings of capitalism as a socio-economic system.
Marx's massive three volume main work, in German – Das Kapital, its
proper English title being: "Capital. A Critical Analysis of
Capitalist Production."
"Marx's great achievement was to place the system of capitalism on
the defensive."
(US writer Charles Madison.)
Clarity is also necessary when it comes to confusion over the terms
Communism and Socialism.
They are historical economic and social stages of the same thing.
Socialism has a very distinct definition for Marxists. It is a
transitional stage; an intermediate set of socio-economic
relationships where capitalist ownership of the means of production
is transferred to common ownership.
Under this first stage of communism, which Marxists call socialism,
there are of course inequalities. Socialism does not yet claim to
be 'equal.' Socialist production aims to create the necessary
conditions for communism. Socialist production is planned for these
priorities, for such high levels of production that goods,
ultimately, can be produced in abundance. That ultimate stage, that
ultimate goal, is Communism; in which things are produced in such
abundance that no one needs to 'want', hoard, make profit out of, or
steal anything. Supply and demand will also no longer be out of step
with each other. The same economic power, in the hands of a whole
population, will supply what it demands.
The essential thing to understand here is that it is about ownership
of the means of creation of wealth. This does not refer to any
capitalist notions of socialism – bourgeois reformist socialism such
as the British Labour Party's "redistribution of wealth" – wealth
already created and made profit on by capitalists, or nationalising
production of penny gobstoppers (ask anybody over 50), and especially
New Labour, which has long ago written the essential socialist Clause
4 out of its manifesto:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of
their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may
be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of
production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system
of popular administration and control of each industry or service".
(British Labour Party Clause 4, removed in 1995 by Blair's New
Labourites.)
Capitalism cannot work in a socialist way. Reformist socialism cannot
survive in a capitalist controlled state, where capitalists have full
economic power and therefore control of the legislative and executive
arms of the state. If there was overwhelming popular support for a
majority communist government in parliament, you would soon see the
Queen not giving consent to form a government, parliamentary
democracy withdrawn and a state of emergency declared and implemented
by the armed forces. If a socialist revolution, whether parliamentary
or not, cannot defend itself against the remains of a former
capitalist state and external capitalist aggression it is doomed to
failure.
Socialism and Communism are described quite adequately in good
Marxist text-books. But it is not very common to find a popular
description. One of the simplest and easiest to understand popular
descriptions I have come across is that by the late Dean of
Canterbury, Doctor Hewlett Johnson:
"Socialism: 'From each according to his ability; to each according to
his work'.
Communism: 'From each according to his ability; to each according to
his needs'.
Both definitions had one thing in common - 'from each according to
his ability'. All must work, and work according to his ability. Some
as artists, some as artisans, others as organisers, teachers, as
engineers and so forth - all must work. It is interesting to note
that the Soviet Union was the first state to put duties into its
constitution. ["He who does not work; neither shall he eat" is a
popular communist saying. B.M.]
It followed, of course, that if all must work, all must be provided
for the opportunity for work. And that brought us to the second
clause of the definition of socialism - 'To each according to his
work'. It ensured the right to an adequate reward for work.
Furthermore, as work varied in value or quality, reward in a
socialist state would also vary in amount. Socialist society was not
an egalitarian society. Socialist society was the stage of society
[reached B.M.] in Russia. The corollary that each must receive an
adequate reward for work, together with provision for opportunity for
work, postulated a planned economy. It also postulated control by the
whole community of land, power and all natural resources and
productive processes...
I then passed to Marx's definition of communism. Like socialism,
communism demanded work from all, in a planned economy: 'From each
according to his ability'. But there the likeness ended, the second
half of the definition ran thus: 'To each according to his need'.
Not, observe, according to his work, but 'according to his need'.
Socialism came first; communism followed. You could not spring
straight into communism at once, the ground had to be prepared for 2
reasons: only a rich state could provide enough consumable goods to
give 'each according to his need' and only a disciplined people dare
try it. It would break down in a work-shy society...
It was the contention of socialists and communists alike that the
socialist state would provide in time the quantity of goods and the
quality of character - a rich state and an advancing morality - to
build communism."
(Dean of Canterbury Doctor Hewlett Johnson "Searching For Light.")
The ultimate goal, one that is ridiculed by apologists of capitalism
as "utopian" or "contrary to human nature" (they probably mean their
own), is communism – production in abundance for all. But what is
utopian or impossible about that? Is it not possible that when the
people own the means of production in a planned economy unfettered by
the drag of only being able to produce if somebody can make personal
profit out of it, everything that people need or want can be produced
in abundance? Given time and human will, we have the ability and
technology, what is impossible about that?
Capitalism derives great pleasure of propaganda when it refers to
people like Pol Pot and his Khmer RougeYear Zero killing fields in
Cambodia as communist. Such people were never communists and were an
anathema to communists.
Likewise so-called anti-communists. There is no such thing. Anyone
who calls themselves an anti-communist could not have been a
communist in the first place. Just as an anti-Darwinist or anti-
Newtonian, you cannot uninvent the wheel, evolution ot gravity.
Also there is no such thing as international communism or world
communism. Each communist party is its own autonomous entity and it
is communist diplomatic ethics that a party of one country does not
interfere with the internal workings of another. However there is
such a thing as international capitalism; it's called imperialism.
So with the correct terminological understanding firmly in mind, we
can expose the mythology of capitalist economic ideology.

Myth 1.
Profit Comes From Calculating Cost Plus Profit?  Impossible!
As every businessman or mainstream economist will take great pains to
explain and elaborate, defining profit is simply a matter of working
out your costs – rent, premises, machinery, raw materials, fuel
(energy), labour (wages) – and adding on a percentage of 'profit'
that you think the market will stand. Surely everyone knows that?
Well no! Profit does not come from adding a percentage to cost. This
is a rather pathetic capitalist mitigation for the right to obtain
profit. It takes only the thinking capacity of a child of ten to
realise that this mere rationalisation posing as theory could not
possibly be true.
If profit is made by adding on a percentage over costs, then, where
do the working class, the worker, the ultimate purchaser, whose only
source of income is the wages received from capitalists, get this
extra percentage in order to give the capitalist his profit? Is the
worker printing extra money for himself or getting free money
somewhere else in order to make that extra percentage that is his
boss's profit?
Let's imagine that the money price of the means of subsistence of an
engineer is £10 a day. You can substitute whatever proportionate
figure you like. For this he works 8 hours. The capitalist pays for
that day: £100 for rent, maintenance, wear and tear of machinery, and
fuel etc. used up in production in that day; £200 for raw materials,
and £10 for our worker's wages. This totals £310 for our product for
that day. But the capitalist counts on getting say £320 for his
product, or £10 more than his outlay. Classical economics agreed that
a commodity sells at its value. I.E: the labour contained in it. So
£320 is the value of our commodity, measured by the labour contained
in it; I.E: the value of the labour contained in the raw materials,
the value of the labour contained in that part of the wear and tear
of the plant and machinery used up in production of that commodity,
and the value newly added to the commodity by the labour of our
engineer.
But of the £320 for our product £300 were already present before the
work began. £200 were present in the raw materials and £100 were
present in the overheads. And according to classical economics, £20
had been added to the value of the raw materials by the worker. His 8
hours had created new value of £20. The value of his 8 hours is £20.
But our worker has only been paid £10. The capitalist says that his
wages for 8 hours is £10. So we now have two values: For the worker,
the value of 8 hours labour is £10; for the capitalist it is £20.
Lets look at it another way. In 8 hours a value of £20 is created.
Therefore, in 4 hours £10 is created. In 4 hours the worker has
already paid for, or made for the capitalist, the value of his wages.
So at mid-day he stops working since he and the capitalist are now
quits. But the capitalist forces him to continue working for another
4 hours, making a total of 8 hours. But in return for 8 hours labour
the worker gets as wages the value of commodities worth only 4 hours
labour. Either labour has two different values or 8 equals 4.
The source of all capitalist economic wealth is the difference
between these two values. The value of labour power and the value it
produces or creates are two different values. It is this difference,
this capability of labour to create more than its own value, that the
capitalist invests his capital in. This is the capability, or service
he expects from it; not that it merely produces, but that it produces
more than its own cost, that it not only reproduces itself, but that
it also produces a surplus value. If it only reproduced itself, its
own value, but without any surplus, capitalists would not invest in
it, since it would not realise any profit.
Of the two different values that the commodity appears to have, it is
the greater that represents its true value. Exploitation exists not
in the final sale of a commodity but in the fact that the greater of
the two values, surplus value, is not paid for by the capitalist.
If I am a capitalist and the cost of my product is £1 and my profit
is 40p making a total price of £1.40; do I pay you as a worker £1.40p
in wages so that you can have the honour of buying back my product at
cost plus profit? Of course not. Then where does my 40p profit come
from? Do I charge you only £1, which is my cost – including wages,
and obtain the 40p somewhere else myself? Perhaps the bank gives it
to me for being so enterprising? Or do I pay you only £1 in wages and
hope that you'll find the other 40p somewhere else in order to pay me
the £1.40 for my product so that I can make a profit?
All sorts of sophisticated attempts are made to show that profit is
somehow "earned" by the capitalist as a reward for his risk,
sacrifice, enterprise and hard work, and he therefore has a right to
it; just as the worker earns his wages.
Clearly this is ridiculous! This is not the way profit is made by
capitalists. This is obviously not where capitalist profit comes
from.

Myth 2.
Who Has The Real Wealth?
The Essential Difference Between Wealth and Money
"A capitalist creates wealth no more than a person who milks a cow
creates milk."
(Kark Marx.)
Capitalist economic theory confuses the important and essential
difference which must be made between profit and wealth. They are
quite different things. A capitalist makes profit. He does not create
wealth.
Since barter trading became such that you couldn't carry your wealth
around with you, a means of representing wealth had to be created –
money of some kind – coinage or notational money, including banknotes
and cheques and other representational forms.
Money is merely the price representation of the value of commodities.
It is not another separate or additional value, and not wealth in
itself.
If I have a loaf of bread with a price of 50 pence and £3 spare cash
to spend, and you have a bottle of wine with a price of £3 and spare
cash of 50 pence, our total ownership in real wealth – commodities –
is £3.50. The £3.50 in money between us is only a money or currency
representation of the total commodity wealth existing between us; it
is not another value. The ridiculous assumption of capitalist
reasoning is that a value of £7 exists between us.
Of course, for practical reasons, the money supply needs to be
regulated so that there is more money in circulation than the value
of the commodities produced and in circulation, that price money
represents. But this does not increase the true value of the
commodities in circulation themselves.
Money appears to be what we work for – wages. But this is only the
appearance. You can't eat it, clothe or house yourself in it; it has
no use value except that it is a means of exchange; it has a small
value in that it is has a cost of production. Earlier forms of money
currency did have an intrinsic value, whether that was a herd of
cattle or gold coins. But money today does not have this intrinsic
value; whether it is a coin, a note, a cheques or an IOU, it is all a
money representation of wealth, but it is not the wealth itself. You
can only spend it. You exchange it for the things you need - for
commodities. Wages, money, is only a means of exchanging one
commodity: labour, for another – a commodity, the product of labour.
Money is just a temporary store of values; a representation of value -
  the value of your labour or the value of the commodities you buy
with it which are the product of somebody else's labour. Hence,
money, or money capital, and financial capital, merely represents
commodities.
To illustrate this, divide the world (in terms of population) into
two halves. One half own all the raw materials, means of production
and means of subsistence, and of course the product of their labour,
but own no money. The other half own all the money but none of the
other things.
The question to settle is: which half own all the wealth. This forces
us to ascertain what is wealth - commodities or merely the money
representation of these commodities.
Obviously it's the half with the commodities that has the wealth.
Further more, how would the halves trade with each other? The
commodity half would be stupid to trade commodities, say a loaf of
bread or a toothbrush, for money from the other half. Because then,
what would they do with that useless money?
Clearly, the true essence of economic value in the world is in its
commodities, not the money price representation of them – as revealed
by the classical economist beloved of capitalist ideologists, Adam
Smith, in his excellent works: "The Wealth of Nations."
Once trading of surplus commodities above requirements became
complicated in that you couldn't carry your wealth in commodities
around with you, forms of money became necessary to represent your
wealth. But money was merely a notational representation of price, it
was not the wealth itself. This is the most serious mistake of
capitalist economic theory, trading in money or prices for a profit.
It is precisely why banks, currency markets and other forms of
financial dealing are crashing today (September 2008). It is the
ridiculous practice of trading in mere money – buying and selling
prices when commodities are not changing hands.
(See Banking and Finance etc, below.)

Myth 3.
Banking and Finance or Buying and Selling:
Money Profit Does Not Create Wealth
Since, as we have seen, money itself is not wealth, only the price
representation of wealth; perhaps the biggest and most easily
debunked notion of capitalism is that money makes money.
You can lend, buy and sell, or swap money around all day long. But
all you will be dealing with is the money price representation of
commodities, not the commodity wealth itself. Future financial
interest is the money representation of commodities that do not yet
exist and have not been created. Sooner or later the commodities
represented by that extra money as interest have to be produced and
change hands.
Trading in or juggling about with money does not add any real wealth
value to the national product of commodities.
Investments in banks, building societies or other financial
transactions certainly makes monetary profits. But it cannot create
wealth – commodities.
Capitalist profit does not come from banking and finance – so called
investments – putting £1 in the bank or building society and getting
40p as interest. Nobody has yet seen two pounds, dollars,
Deutchmarks, Krugerrand or Yen get together in a bank vault and
produce any baby money offspring. Yet presumably, in every bank
there's some half wit in a pinstripe business suit buying £1 notes
from investors and selling them back later for £1.40 each?!
All profits from banking or any kind of financial dealings must
eventually come from investment in human labour, as this is the only
possible source of profit wealth.
Nor can capitalist profit come from buying and selling – retail –
buying at one price and selling at a higher price.
Trading – buying and selling, in other words, merchant capital, does
not create any new wealth; it does not add any value to the product;
it does not create any new surplus value. It only redivides or
redistributes wealth or surplus value already created by the working
class. The trader acts as an extension of the money grabbing hands of
the industrial capitalist seeking to retrieve and renew his capital
in order to exploit labour anew in the continuing process.
Traders' profit is a share in the surplus value created by labour.
So in trading – mere buying and selling; or in usury – loan and
interest bearing capital, no human labour is involved; no value is
added to the product; no surplus value is created. Profits made in
this way do not create any new wealth; they do not result from the
creation of surplus value, but result from a redistribution of
surplus value already created in the commodities that this money
represents. Remember; money only represents commodities, or labour
power, so an increase in money, unless it is to be inflationary, can
only represent an increase in commodities or labour power. Only
labour power creates surplus value. Capital, or money, on its own,
cannot increase its own value such as by interest on loans or by
buying and selling commodities.
If the total amount of money in the world increased a million times
without a corresponding, million times increase in the amount of
commodities, it would merely represent grossly inflated money.
Interest of any kind, and buying and selling of any commodities, does
not create any surplus value. A change in value cannot take place in
money since it would merely be inflated money. And a change in value
cannot take place in produced commodities since they would merely
represent inflated or overpriced commodities. Neither of them can
increase their value by themselves without the application of labour
power to add more value to them. Except of course the commodity:
labour power.
The commodity labour power is what capitalists must ultimately invest
in as the only commodity that can produce more than its own value and
is therefore the source of all capitalist profit.
All profits from all other forms of investments and business –
banking and finance, insurance, lending, building societies, or any
other form of financial or monetary interest, and retail – commerce,
trading, buying and selling, do not result from the creation of new
values or new wealth.
The industrial capitalist is the initial appropriator of all surplus
values; of all other profits.
Financial profits can only originate from industrial profits; from
capital invested in labour; from the surplus value extracted from the
labour of the producer.
Any analysis of the current 2008 economic crisis is upside down – a
case of the tail wagging the dog.. The problem is not cause by
the "credit crunch" said to originate from US sub-prime mortgage
lending or any other financial issue. It originates in the
fundamental essence of the working of capitalist production.
Nor do profits arise from the Labour Party notions of redistribution
or manipulation of wealth values already created by human labour.
All these financial and monetary chains of business must eventually
and ultimately invest their capital in human labour – industrial
capital – somewhere along the line.
You can put a million pounds into any form of finance house and wait
for a million years; you will not get back a penny extra if that
money is not invested somewhere else, somewhere other than another
finance house. It must be invested in human labour somewhere to
create profit.
It is an absurd quirk of British buying and selling that property
(housing or land) is seen as a "sound" investment. Nonsense. There is
no law of nature, god or man that says that property increases in
value. It has only done so in-so-far as there is somebody with the
purchasing power to buy at the higher price. It is a quirk of British
history that mortgages are treated differently from the hire purchase
of a car or television. Before no interest deals, it used to be that
you paid the price of your television plus a small percentage of
interest. There is no logic or scientific economic law that says that
buying and selling houses should be the same, yet increase in value,
any more than a second hand food mixer.
(See The Pencil, below.)

Myth 4.
The Pencil –
Capitalist Profits Cannot Come from Capital to Capital Transactions
Consider the manufacture and selling of a pencil, one with a brass
ferrule on the end with an eraser.
The total number of capitalist transactions in the making and selling
would amount to thousands, at a multitude of stages needed to make
such a simple thing as a pencil – aquisition of all the different raw
materials from so many different sources, the primary production of
these into the many materials and component parts of the pencil, all
the different shipping and transport costs, manufacture of transport,
machinery etc associated in all stages and parts of aquisition and
production of a pencil – the timber, its extraction as a raw
material, its transport, its transformation into the two halves which
make a pencil, the glue used to bond these two halves together, the
raw materials for the manufacture of this glue, the transformation of
these into the various chemicals to make glue, the transport involved
at each stage of this; raw material extraction and processing of the
carbon and graphite to make the pencil's lead, the raw materials and
processing of chemicals and dyes needed to make the glossy paint and
thin stripes decorating a pencil, the raw metallurgical material and
smelting of brass to make the ferrule on the end of the pencil to
hold the rubber eraser, the raw material of the eraser – rubber,
colouring and dyes, hundreds of different primary raw material
extractions – forestry, timber, mining, minerals, chemicals, hundreds
of transportational stages for each material at each stage, vast
varieties of machinery for the raw material extraction, processing
and manufacture at hundreds of stages; every single business
transaction at every stage of every part being transactions between
capitalist and capitalist, the final stage making all this complete
and possible being the purchase by the end user or consumer of our
pencil.
If the capitalist class as a whole obtained profit by adding a
percentage to costs, each capitalist passing on this total cost – ie:
cost plus an extra percentage – to the next capitalist in each
transaction; then, seeing as the final purchaser, usually the working
class, their source of income being the wages paid to them by the
capitalist class as a whole, where does the final purchaser get all
this added extra money to pay for all these accumulated capitalist
costs plus profits?
Again; clearly; profit does not come from a percentage added to
costs. Nore does it come from selling goods above their value.
If profit comes from a percentage added to costs, then since most
business is done between capitalist and capitalist, if they sold
goods to each other by adding a percentage as profit, the whole
capitalist class would be cheating each other, and where one made a
profit by adding value the other would make a loss. What each
capitalist gains as a seller he would lose every time as a buyer,
because the seller has also 'added a bit on'. The profits and losses
would cancel each other out, leaving no general profit for the
capitalist class as a whole.
No. Capitalists do not make a profit by cheating each other. Profits
cannot be made by selling goods above their value or buying them
below value.
True value, as determined by the labour theory of value, cannot be
added to a commodity during these transaction; it can only be added
by the application of further labour.
Then where does capitalist profit come from?
A commodity sells at its true value – its cost of production; even
with the inclusion of, under capitalism, capitalist profit. The
source of capitalist profit is from not paying the worker the true
value of the product of his labour. Labour, being the only thing in
the world – the only commodity capital can invest in – which produces
more wealth value than its own value or cost of production; not the
cost of the worker, since the capitalist does not buy the worker or
pay the cost of the worker, that was slavery, but he buys the
worker's ability to labour – his labour power. That is the only
commodity that can produce more than its own value. The Labour Theory
of Value rears its ugly head in front of capitalists – facing
capital – and asserts itself as the creative source of all wealth
values in the disguised form of capitalist profit.
(See also Cost Plus profit, above.)

Myth 5.
That Other Darling of Capitalist Economists –
Supply and Demand Cannot Determine Value
It is a bourgeois concoction that supply and demand are natural
phenomena determining value or even price.
Supply and demand cannot determine the value already inherent in a
created commodity.
Supply and demand certainly have their constant push-pull effect on
prices; which means that goods are being sold continually above or
below value, fluctuating above and below a certain level, but on
average, goods sell at their value.
So what is this level of value that prices fluctuate about? And what
determines value when supply and demand are equal and have no effect
on value?
If there is a sudden demand for a product its price temporarily
increases. But then production increases until the demand is met,
supply and demand become equal, cancelling each other out, and no
longer have an effect on each other, and prices return to "normal."
But what is this "normal?"
Again; there can be only one answer: the law of exchange value
determined by labour, the labour theory of value.
Supply and demand can be altered any time you like. Supply and demand
can be manipulated completely in favour of whoever controls it and
profits out of it by such things as advertising and productivity and
levels of technology.
There are ridiculous contradictions in this, as in the whole of
capitalist production.
Slowing down production creates higher demand and higher prices, but
less is sold and less profits are made. To make more profits,
capitalists speed up production, supply over-reaches demand, prices
drop and so do profits; unless massive investments in technology
speeds production so high that the rate of profit rises temporarily
until the market is again saturated with over-production and markets
fall again.
Also, a sudden demand is useless on its own. Where do the 'demanders'
get the money to pay for the extra commodities they demand without
producing something extra themselves? Another demand would have to be
found or created for the products of these new 'demanders' before
they would even have the money to satisfy their own new demand.
If markets were flooded by releasing the over-produced goods onto the
market, the price of those goods would drop below their value and no
profit would be made. To keep grain prices artificially high, farmers
are paid to destroy the year's entire crop, and more likely to grow
nothing at all.
If, for example, you want to increase the price of sugar or petrol,
you simply create a high demand by stockpiling these products. If you
wanted to reduce the price of labour, you just lower the demand by
increasing the supply by creating unemployment.
How can you express value or base a value system, definition or
criteria on supply and demand?!
Supply and demand can explain capitalist prices, and can go a little
way towards indicating that a concrete theory of value exists. For
instance, when supply and demand are equal and have no effect on
prices.
But a consistent and useful theory of value could never be based on
something as subjective and unstable as supply and demand.
For one thing; how do you measure it? What is the degree of demand –
of being wanted, of being demanded – embodied in a commodity?
Demand is completely subjective, according to needs or wants in
people's minds, which are variable, creatable; and supply is also
variable and creatable. How can something variable express a
constant?
What determines supply? Bourgeois economists say the cost of
production. So the bourgeois economists, trying to explain prices,
find that prices depend on the price of production. Prices depend on
prices!
The value of labour power is subject to the same laws as other
commodities. The same laws that regulate the price of commodities
also regulates the price of wages.
E.G: Supply and demand – competition between buyers and sellers.
An army of unemployed depresses wages.
Certainty of profits creates a demand for labour and wages increase.
But as with the cost of other commodities, wages tend to fluctuate
around their true value; which is the cost of maintaining and
reproducing the working class.
This can be lowered by various means. By importing cheaper labour. By
importing cheaper food so lower wages can be paid.
In other words, the price of labour becomes cheaper when, just like
any other commodity, the cost of its means of production in food,
living expenses, and enough luxuries to keep it happy and content
with its status, is cheaper.
As we see, the law of labour value always asserts itself.

Myth 6.
The Island World Family: The Missing Driving Force –
We Need a Capitalist!
Capitalists like to put competition and entrepreneurial notions as a
driving force.
Let's do a simple test. Let's reduce the world to easier
understandable dimensions and say that there was only one land mass –
a small island, and one family – father, mother, son, daughter, all
of workable age; and all the resources they need to build a house and
eat and live, go on holiday and go to Bob Dylan concerts.
How would we arrange our socio-economic relations and therefore
democracy? Would we say: "Hold on, something's missing here, we need
an entrepeneur, a capitalist, to make his profit out of our
endeavours"? Would we say: "Wait a minute – there's no democracy
here; we need some capitalists to own the wealth we create and to
vote for?" Would we also say we need some Gods, Archbishops and
churches to worship them in?
Would we invoke capitalist freedom, entrepreneurial competition?
Would we arrange them in a capitalist way of producing their needs?
EG:
Would we say that the father will be the capitalist, owning the land,
raw materials, means of production (tools/factories), the products
produced, and the profits made by selling those products to the other
family members, to whom he gives over a little of the product as
wages, and they could buy some of it back with the wages that he pays
them?
Of course not. It could not be sustainable.
Or would it be better to have cooperation and public or popular
ownership, with divisions of labour according to suitability in terms
of physical stature and special knowledge and aptitude?
Wouldn't it be better to effect a socialist socio-economic
relationship and division of labour according to capability and body
structure – father and son being stronger in stature, dig the
foundations, build the house, the timber floors, windows, plumbing
and so on, with mother and daughter (not to be sexist about it – I'm
talking about congenital physical structure here) fetching bricks,
painting, fixing curtains  share the growing of food, and share
ownership of the land, its raw materials, the house, the means of
production and the products produced?
Now add some more family members, totalling first 5, then 6, 7, and
so on. Where is the number we get to where this socio-economic system
becomes inoperable, as capitalism always does – only sustained by
continually advancing technology and effective purchasing power,
ultimately only by military force?
There is no magic number. It is sustainable whatever the population,
as we see in embryonic socialist countries so far.
The capitalist, unlike capital, is superfluous to the requirements of
people producing commodities. Workers can elect one of our own to
manage, co-ordinate, direct and plan, and pay him a wage, even a
slightly higher one, out of the wealth we produce. But we have
absolutely no need for a capitalist, an `entrepeneur,' to own our
means of production, the products we create, and the surplus wealth
we create as his private profit, and in effect, to own the rest of
us.

Myth 7.
FROP TROPF and Other Diseases of Capitalism
Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. If it is not to
stagnate and turn in on itself, capitalism must obey the intrinsic
rules of its own dynamism.
Capitalism has an intrinsic dynamism in that it has to continually
expand geo-demographically, and continually improve its productive
technology and productive capacity in a never ending repitition of
its cycle of capital and profit. Each cycle of capital accrues profit
which has to be reinvested as increased capital inducing ever more
profit in a cyclic drive that must continue if capital is not to
stagnate and die.
The DNA of capital is such that it must expand geographically and
demographically in order to couninue to reinvest profits as further
capital. This has historically led from slavery through feudalism,
the capitalist industrical revolution, colonialism and imperialism;
and through economic competition and economic conflict, ultimately to
wars.
All wars are essentially economic in origin and purpose. Though they
might manifest themselves as religious, racial or cultural, wars are
ultimately means of aggrandisement – of economic and political
domination.
In its attempt to counter its inherent decline and maintain its aim
of profit, capitalism has to resort to various means. It has to
continually improve its productive technology and productive
capacity. It has to keep wages as low as possible. It has to keep
prices as high as possible. And it has to keep selling as much as
possible.
But all these counter-measures have contradictory effects and
results; such as increased technological and productive capacity
leading to overproduction and unsellable goods, unemployment and
diminishing purchasing power. Geographical and demographic expansion
is also finite; leaving only the moon for capital to expand to.
Technological and productive capacity is also ultimately finite.
However, this is a futile attempt at achieving perpetual motion, or
perhaps atomic fusion.
These capitalist diseases are know by Marxists as FROP or TROPF – the
tendency of the falling rate of profit, or the tendency of the rate
of profit to fall.
It is ironically noticeable that capitalist ideologists completely
deny, refute and vilify Marxist views. Yet they have a parallel
theory called marginal utility value – adding MUV to our repertoire
of acronisms.
Essentially, TROP or FROP means this:
It is paradoxical and contradictory that although it is only labour
power that produces more value than its own cost, and is the true
source of capitalist profit – what Marx calls surplus value;
capitalists naturally try to minimise the capital invested in labour
and invest more in labour-eliminating technology. Profits will
therefore be less because of this; and because the working class, who
must necessarily constitute the majority of people, having an
increasingly tendency to become unemployed, naturally have decreased
or negative purchasing power.
Capitalist ideologists use their "evidence" that it has not happened
and that capitalism has spread all over the world in order to refute
and vilify the scientificity of TROPF. But it is important to note
that Marx, and all good Marxists, have always asserted that this is a
tendency, not an observable fact. It is a tendency so far tenuously
held in check by continual investment in technology, cheaper labour,
the cheapening of labour's necessities such as food, cheaper raw
materials, intensifying the exploitation of other nations, lands and
peoples.
However, what the anti-Marxists fail to recognise is that their
counter measures are finite and will eventually fail. This is partly
indicated in the assertion by capitalists that capitalism is
cyclical – without ever producing any satisfactory explanation or
theoretical evidence.
In fact, the evidence that with each capitalist boom and bust,
although booms may have a tendency to ratchet upwards, each slump
ratchets more strongly downwards, the gap between rich and poor ever
widening further than perhaps it was in Victorian times nationally in
Britain, and increasing exponentially globally, and thus the general
socio-economic and ultimate decline of capitalism.
As we have seen, there is no such thing as perpetual motion and
sooner or later the counter-measures will fail to cope.

Myth 8.
How Many Fridges and Cars Can Detroit Robots Buy With Their Wages?
I cannot recall the exact details – and it matters not whether true
or not, but the story goes that a British Labour or Trade Union
official was being shown round an automated plant in Detroit which
used robots to make steel pressings for car body parts and cases of
fridges and washing machines. The American hosts tried to intimidate
their guest saying: See this automated robot production line, the
robots just keep working. They don't go on strike, take smoking
breaks or go off sick, they work day and night and don't even need
the lights turned on. The British labour official replied: Yes but
how good are they at buying cars, fridges and washing machines?
I remember in the 1960s or was it 70s that the first cassette tape
recorders cost a week's wages or more. A few years later you could
buy one for £17. Capitalists had gone through all the usual stages,
new products more costly to produce and profits had to be high per
unit sold. By the time they were made in Taiwan or the Phillipines by
cheap labour and high technology, thousands could be bashed out per
worker; but hundreds had to be sold for the same overall profit as a
single unit initially. That is, capitalistically, you can produce
cassette tape recorders by the million, but sooner or later you've
got to sell them all or go broke; and since the workers of the
world's only source of purchasing power is the wages capitalist
companies pay them, which has got to be less than the selling price
of their overall product output – otherwise no profit.
Capitalists naturally want to keep wages as low as possible, and sell
for as much profit as possible – the classical class struggle. But
inherent in that is the fact that lower wages and fewer workers means
less purchasing power; causing a downward spiral of ever shorter
cycles of capital – less sold – lower profit – less capital to
reinvest.
Therein lies another fundamental dichotomy of capitalist production.

Myth 9.
Solving the Problem of Poverty –
Give the Poor a Few Million Dollars to "Invest"
If, as capitalist ideology says, that equal opportunities lead to
universal prosperity for all; then another simple experiment proves
that this could never be.
If, as capitalists say, money creates wealth, the problem of world
poverty is easily solved. Just give every starving child and poor
person several million Pounds/ Dollars/ Yen/ Krugerrand or
Deutschmarks etc, which they could invest in a bank (an extremely
successful one of course!), and they can live off the profits from
these investments and gradually pay back the loan.
Everybody cannot be a capitalist. Capitalism, by its very nature,
because of its inherent laws, because of what it is, because it is
capitalism, can only survive as the exploitation of the majority by a
minority. If everybody was a capitalist, then it would cease to be
capitalism and become socialism – common ownership of capital wealth.

Myth 10.
Can We Do That?
A Very Big Myth:
Democracy Freedom and Human Rights in Capitalist Society
Perhaps the most obvious and perhaps biggest mythology of capitalist
ideology is the democracy, freedom and human rights about which they
keep screaming at us from the rooftops.
Received notions of democracy, freedom and human rights are the
complete fraud which is amazingly so universally accepted by an
uninformed, un-thinking and uneducated and misinformed public in
capitalist countries.
In short; capitalist democracy is a lie, and capitalist freedom and
human rights are meaningless and worthless.
Let's look at the issues one by one.

Sham Democracy
The absence of a multitude of political parties, or more than one
party, does not mean the absence of democracy. Socialist democracy is
in fact a true and higher form of democracy.
In 1917 Russia had a revolution and the working class took all
political power and government out of the hands of capital and into
the hands of a people's state and government.
The slogan of this revolution was: "All power to the Soviets." The
word Soviet means "council", more or less the same as the word
parliament. The original title was Councils of Workers' Soldiers' and
Peasants' Deputies, later amended to: Council of People's Deputies.
These councils were at all levels of democratic power, operating at
all levels of government from a local or factory or workplace Soviet
to the Supreme Soviet.
In the USSR in Soviet times, people all participate in government;
they are the state. There is no other state, no parliament full of
dozey MPs in a confusion of capitalist parties. British people just
vote – for that nice Mr. Churchill as my mother used to say. But
British people have absolutely no control of the state.
Not to gloss over what the Soviet Union was; and I had many trips
there, experiencing the daily lives of Soviet people and officials in
all walks of life in universities, schools, work places, sports and
leisure, government officials, university professors, journalists,
translators and interpreters, bus drivers and laundry workers, both
at work and in their homes. In all of that, despite looking hard for
any sign of what capitalist propaganda had told me, I never detected
or experienced any difference in the way people were treated. Every
person I came in contact with seemed well educated, motivated and
energetic in their role in society. They were also very human,
friendly, hospitable, generous, sensitive, kind and understanding,
and most, but not all, were highly politicised.
But what new society has ever been ready-made perfect at such a young
age? Can capitalism cast the first stone?
There were of course shortcomings, mistakes, misuse of power, and
corruption. There was a section of the population which did not have
the qualities mentioned above. I was occasionally pestered by
unofficial currency dealers offering a higher rate for western
currency. They are now probably what are referred to as the Moscow
millionaires and own British football clubs. My criticism was that
this was allowed to happen in socialist society. And it is my opinion
that this was partly to do with lapses in education and political
culture. I will discuss socialist society a little more below.
If you have abolished capitalism, and there is no socio-economic
class of capitalists. There is then only one socio-economic class
left – the working class; with its own party, to formulate government
and be governed by. (Our island family above, but bigger.)
To the objectors of this situation who say there should be at least
one other party to vote for, some kind of opposition, it is necessary
to ask: Who is it that would need an opposition? What other socio-
economic class would this "opposition" party represent? What will be
the policy of this "opposition" to working class policy?
In any society, there can only be social ownership of capital and the
means of production, or private ownership. There is no British
Blairite Labour Party "third way."
Socialist democracy is about discussing and voting for policies and
the representatives to carry out agreed policies from the ground
upwards. That is how democracy should work in true socialist society.
Another misreported and misunderstood aspect of communist inner party
democracy adopted by most communist parties is what is called
Democratic Centralism. This means that an idea, proposal or policy is
thoroughly thrashed out through discussion and debate right up
through the various levels from the basic local level to the highest
level, where, once it becomes agreed and voted on by the majority at
the appropriate level, with a quorum if required of a certain minimum
percentage, say, two thirds, of the electorate, the resolution
becomes party policy and is binding on all party members. Any member
who disagrees and wants to work against agreed policy as a dissident
must resign from the party. There is none of the various factions or
splits and divisions found in capitalist parties, with their own
policies or agenda, such as the various right wing, left wing, ultral
left, factions, with their own aganda and their own newspaper such as
found in the British Labour Party.
In the Soviet form, if an elected deputy did not vote for a decided
policy and did not carry out the wishes of the constituency
electorate, the electorate have the right of recall, which removes
that deputy from office and a new one elected.
Can we do that?!
Of course, these representatives can be corrupt and self serving if
the electors do not or cannot keep track of what they are doing.
The problem is that a socialist society with socialist ideals, the
new socialist man if you want to be that trendy, has not had the
chance to be developed. That won't be done in a couple of
generations. As the people of the GDR (East Germany) at the end of a
Nazified and war torn society said, we have to build our socialist
society with the people we've got; there is no other German people.
It will take generations to appreciate the more humane ethics of
socialist society.
The "freedom" to vote for a choice of capitalist parties while the
means of subsistence and production of wealth is privately owned as
capital; and while capitalist, I prefer to call it mis-education, and
mass media and publishing suppresses knowledge, information and
understanding, is nothing more than a nominal freedom; nothing more
than the freedom of a prisoner to choose his jailer.
"The most powerful weapon in the hands of an oppressor is the mind of
the oppressed."
(Steve Biko.)
The most powerful weapon in a sham democracy is public opinion,
through its control of education, the media and publishing. If you
control, limit and narrow what people think, you control the
political agenda.
Freedom and democracy under capitalist socio-economic conditions are
meaningless words devoid of any substance. Freedom to vote without
freedom to be without poverty, unemployment and wars is no freedom at
all. Freedom to vote without the guaranteed freedom of food,
clothing, housing and warmth, health and hygiene, education, culture
and the full riches of the earth, is a complete denial of freedom and
a despicable plunder of the meaning of the word.
A couple of hundred years ago, the British Land Enclosure acts in a
parliament of wealthy land owners and their friends and supporters
took away the bulk of the common land of the British people who had
lived there and cultivated for generations could no longer farm any
part of it, freely take deer or pheasants from forests or fish from
lakes, rivers and streams.
The only part of Britain where you can now, to a degree, freely take
food is the foreshore – perhaps only because tides make it difficult
to say where the sea ends and the land begins.
"The law doth punish man or woman
That steals the goose from off the common,
But lets the greater felon loose,
That steals the common from the goose."
(Anonymous 1764, during the English land enclosures.)
The rich having secured everything productive into their own private
hands, the rest of the population then became "free" to work for an
owner of capital – those guys who took the land from our ancestors;
or become a capitalist if you could. The rich then turned around and
said: oh you can have democracy now! So now we can vote for one
capitalist party or another! Why bother?!
How can you talk of democracy when the means of subsistence and the
means of production of life itself are owned by a small separate
economic class?
"Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality …for one
very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor."
(The Tories' favourite economic theorist, Adam Smith. 1723-1790).
It was calculated in the early 1980s that the ratio of ownership of
wealth assets between rich and poor in Britain was 7/84. That is, 7
per cent of the population owned 84 per cent of the country's wealth,
leaving the remaining 16 percent to be shared by the 93 percent
majority rest of us; a gap which has been continually widening since
long before the 1980s, said by some to be approaching the wealth gap
of the Victorian times of my Father's birth. Having worked hard all
his life in factories and shops till the age of 74, we had to borrow
money to bury him.
Real power in Britain does not lie in Parliament. As I think it was
Aneurin Bevan found, real power in Britain lies two miles to the East
of Parliament – in the financial and commercial City of London.
Anybody who doesn't understand or believe that is labouring under
hopeless and pitiful self delusion.
In short; capitalist "democracy" is a lie.
(See also re. democracy in The Island Family above.)

Sham Freedoms
What is this "freedom" they talk about in every speech; that they
must arm themselves to the teeth for? What are these "vital American
interests" which they say they must "defend" in every corner of the
globe?
The "free" world the US defends is the unhindered freedom of capital
to exploit labour. It includes fascist dictatorships – to keep
rebellious workers under control – the world of Pinochet and Pol Pot;
a "free" world of several million children who will starve to death
this year; of several hundred millions with no medicine or health
care; hundreds of millions of illiterates; all this in a very rich
and abundant world; the millions of unemployed and homeless –
millions of these in the United States itself, and in Europe and
other 'advanced' industrialised nations of the capitalist world.
Capitalist notions of "freedom" and "human rights" are totally
useless to the majority of the world's population who have no land or
means of subsistence, are living and dying under starvation, poverty,
unemployment, and lack of basic hygiene and medical care. What use
is "freedom of speech" to this majority of people to whom nobody
listens? What use is "freedom of travel" to the world's hungry people
who can't go anywhere and nobody wants them?
All the freedoms capitalists scream about, freedom of speech, freedom
to travel, are totally useless; not only for the millions of hungry
children living in cardboard boxes on the streets of Delhi Sao Paulo,
but you can see them every night wrapped in newspapers sleeping
against warm grills at the back of lavish hotels and restaurants or
under bridges on the banks of the Thames, the Seine, the Rhine or the
Potomac in the richest and most powerful capitalist nations on earth.
You can take a millionaire and three tramps and say that each has
equal freedom to sleep in a suite at the Hilton or in the delivery
doorway at the back.
The illusion of capitalist ideology is that all have equal freedom to
become a capitalist.
This is merely a nominal freedom, totally useless and meaningless;
since obviously all cannot be capitalists. In that sense the worker
under capitalism is still a slave. The only difference is that he is
a 'free' slave; not owned directly by any one slave owner, not owned
by a feudal lord; but now effectively owned by the whole capitalist
class; who treats him just like any other capital asset to pick up
and drop as the need arises. He is 'free' only in the sense that he
is free to choose his particular master, or free to starve.
No. Capitalist freedom is nothing but a worthless, meaningless,
hollow freedom.

Sham Human Rights
When capitalists can justify their murderous social-economic system
to the poor and hungry; and their murderous wars against humanity in
all the small and weak nations of the world; then they can talk of
peace. When they can justify their denial of the most basic human
rights to the majority of people of the world; then they can talk of
human rights.
How dare they talk of human rights and "freedom" – the big finance
capitalists and bankers and those unwitting unknowing "I'm not a
capitalist" small investors whose collective billions of pounds and
dollars are invested in the cheap labour, raw materials and markets,
sucking the wealth out of the Third World for hundreds of years – in
South East Asia, Latin America; or in Africa, where the majority of
people have no rights, no home other than a tin shed, and a plank or
an old door for a bed, an old coke can to drink out of, no right to a
job, own no land, own no workplaces, can't stand for parliament or
elect one, are not allowed to form trade unions, have no access to
medical treatment or education, and no access to press, radio or
television to tell the world their plight; where the vast majority
are deprived and silenced?
What hypocritical human rights do they talk of when they have sucked
the wealth out of all the small nations for hundreds of years and
then say that these nations are in "debt" to the West – to Western
shareholders, large and small? How dare capitalists and small
investors talk of human rights and freedom when we take billions of
dollars as our tiny part of the enormous third world debt owed to us
by every hungry child in the world?
The media is full of criticisms of human rights only in socialist
countries. When capital ruled in those countries no one said a word
about human rights there. They never called for "free and fair"
elections in these countries while they were under the direct
domination of transnational capital and protected by fascist military
dictatorships.
How dare they talk about human rights when they support, finance, arm
and retain the most horrific capitalist regimes in imperialist client
states all over the world?
No. Capitalists have never throughout history been concerned with
human rights.
Did anyone hear the rich world and its media – owned by the same
capitalists and shareholders who owned diamond, phosphates or uranium
extraction in South Africa – scream too loudly for the ending of
apartheid and the release of Nelson Mandela and free elections there?
Did anyone hear them screaming about human rights when the US
overthrew Chile's elected popular leader Allende and installed
General Pinochet?
Did they decry the US invasion and occupation of the tiny Caribbean
island of Grenada against the wishes of the mass murdered people and
their murdered leader Maurice Bishop?
"With it's 100 million people and its 300 mile arc of islands
containing region's richest hoard of natural resources, Indonesia is
the greatest prize in South East Asia."
(US President Nixon.)
Was there any loud media or government protest at the funding, arming
and imposition of Indonesia's 30 year military government of General
Suharto in the World Bank's "miracle of global economics" or the
CIA's "one of the worst mass murders of the 20th Century" (take
whichever version you want); or Suharto's grabbing of Sumatra, Java
and East Timor, with their "richest hoards" of mining, forestry and
very cheap labour (GAP and Nike clothes and shoes and DIY warehouse
garden furniture and decking to you and me), obtained for us by the
British Labour Government's "ethical foreign policy" as Suharto's
biggest supplier of arms used to murder more than a third of
Indonesians after the US and British backed military take over of the
popular socialist minded government of Sukarno?
Where was the media and government protest at the British Army's
massacres at Batang Kali and killing of millions of the polulation
during the "emergency" in Malaya?
They are not calling for freedom and human rights in El Salvador or
Nicaragua; nor are they calling for the freedom and human rights of
Palestinians.
They are not screaming for free elections in Burma (Myanmar), where
there have been no elections in the 30 years before 1990; and they
have not called for the freedom of the democratically elected leader
Aung San Suu Kyi, who won 82 percent of the votes in those Burmese
elections, is winner of numerous international awards including the
United States Presidential Medal of Freedom, who is imprisoned and
under house arrest under martial law which allows detention without
trial.
Instead the American champions of human rights everywhere, fund and
arm the military dictatorship in Myanmar in opposition to Aung San
Suu Kyi. Maurice Bishop's popular and socialist oriented government
of the tiny Caribbean Island of Grenada was overthrown and the US
invaded and occupied the island. The US overthrew the socialist
inclined government of Arbenz in Guatemala. British interests
murdered the popular leader Patrice Lumumba in the Congo (source of
the uranium for the Hiroshima bomb) and installed Mabutu for 40
years. The Nicaraguan people's popular leader Augusto Sandino was
murdered by the US financed National Guard of the Samoza brothers.
And the CIA fingered Nelson Mandela informing the Apartheid
government of his whereabouts effecting his arrest and 27 years of
imprisonment. The CIA overthrew the constitutional government of
Mossadegh in Iran and installed the Shah. US copper interests
covertly financed and armed the Chilean dictator General Pinochet's
military coup against the elected popular socialist government of
Salvador Allende.
They put Saddam on trial when he no longer cooperated with the US on
oil. But Pinochet is British Prime Minister Thatcher's guest in a
luxury Surrey estate when he came to Britain feeling a bit poorly.
And they positively worship the minority rich family rulers of the
Royal Gulf States, Saudi and Kuwait, and a great multitude of other
despotic, undemocratic governments all around the world.
They only call for the freedom of the reimposition of the rule of
capital in the socialist countries which have already eliminated the
hunger, mass poverty and bad health, illiteracy and homelessness
imposed by their previous domination by capital.
How dare they scream so loudly about 'human rights' in the socialist
countries which have taken themselves out of the capitalist system
and are trying to build a more equitable system of human economic and
thus social progress.
They would likewise have accepted Hitler if he had confined Nazi
Germany to destroying the power of the German working class, Marxism
and the Soviet Union.
No. They only hit countries taking a more liberated, more democratic,
or non capitalist system of socio-economic relations, and the
socialist countries.
The answer is that we benefit from them.
So keep the oil and phosphates flowing and keep the people's of those
countries from getting at them for themselves. How else is any
civilised person going to clean his teeth without an electric
toothbrush or take little Tarquin in a massive off-road utility
vehicle to school – which as we know is half way up mount
Kilimanjaro?
So who's next for regime change or invasion? (Both is better – more
secure)?
Any people sitting on lots of oil it seems – especially if they are
selfish enough to want it for themselves.
Well Venezuela has lots of oil. Venezuela's Chavez government is also
progressive and socialist minded. I'd say this definitely puts
Venezuela high on the US hit list.
Or will it be Iran?
It seems the most abundant human right in the capitalist world is the
right to poverty.
The unemployed are denied the most fundamental human right – to take
part in the economic life of their country.
Many middle class and rich in Britain, and sadly many working class
Tories, object to working people's right to strike – withdrawing
their labour in an unfair system. But they say nothing about business
owners withdrawing their capital when things are not going according
to their liking.
The final result always of capitalist freedom, capitalist human
rights, is the end of freedom, the denial of human rights – a world
in which hundreds of millions have no freedom and not even the most
basic human right – the right to life itself.

Capitalist Economic Theory – A Circular Argument Leading Nowhere
"Can you tell me please, which way I ought to go from here?"
"That depends on where you want to get to" said the cat.
"I don't much care where" said Alice.
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go" said the cat.
(From "Alice in Wonderland.")
That's about as sensible as capitalist economic theory gets.
Any bourgeois economic 'theory' when subjected to serious critical
examination is quite easily disproved. This is because they are only
looking at economics from a narrow capitalist business or accounting
point of view in terms of profitability; they are not looking at it
from a socio-economic point of view, in terms of how it satisfies
human needs.
Capitalist economics takes the firm, the enterprise, the capitalist
aim of private profit, as its basic unit, and builds its theory
around the effectiveness of that in its making and maximising of
profit. It is not interested in the plight of the worker. Even slave
owners were slightly more concerned with the condition of their
slaves, if only because of the hassle of buying another one.
Capitalists do not in practice buy or own the worker, he is nominally
free to work for one capitalist or the other, to work for himself, or
to not work at all if he so desires.
What capitalist economic ideology calls 'theory' is nothing more than
a rationalisation of the profit motive – to give it moral
justification and a respectable academic appearance. All capitalist
economic ideology has only one objective – to rationalise and
legitimise, by idealistic instead of any scientific determinants –
this making and maximisation of private profit posing as economic
theory. Business studies – maybe; accountancy – maybe; but none of it
is economics in any true sense of the word.
The socio-economics of how profit is really made or where it comes
from, or who actually produces it, are subjects not discussed in
bourgeois economics. You will not see real concepts like Adam Smith's
definition of wealth, or Marx's labour theory of surplus value
mentioned or discussed in modern books on economics. Bourgeois
economics is not concerned with such things. That capital makes a
profit for its owners and that these profits can be maximised to the
greatest possible extent by every overt or subtle means is all they
are concerned with.
  "It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't
see the problem."
(G.K.Chesterton.)
The whole argument of mainstream economics is circular, with nothing
running off at a tangent or leading anywhere.
Where David Ricardo's, and later Adam Smith's economic theories,
though completely valid at their stages, were still half baked; it
was Marx who analysed their shortcomings and mistakes and brought
economics to a scientific level and completed the theory of surplus
value and the labour theory of value.
Although Marx's findings solved the problems of the classical
economists; at the same time it exposed the true nature of capitalist
plunder and exploitation. So from then on the capitalist economists
had another problem on their hands: How to use the new knowledge that
Marx had discovered but at the same time publicly refute or deny it.
It is therefore within economics that Marxist philosophy is most
attractive and popular to understand by working class people, since
it is in their interest.
"I owe it to the bourgeois so that they can convince themselves how
vastly superior the uneducated workers, for whom one can easily make
comprehensible the most difficult economic analysis, are to our
supercilious "educated people" to whom such intricate questions
remain insoluble their whole life long."
(Frederick Engels, in his introduction to Marx's "Wage Labour and
Capital.")
Capitalists put profit, competition and entrepreneurship as their
driving force; and elevate these notions as a `skill.' No.
Capitalism, competition, entrepreneurship, the making of profit is
not mankind's driving force, nor is it a skill. The capitalist system
compels the individual capitalist to expand his capital, reduce wages
and costs, with the sole aim of making and increasing his profits.
There is no skill about it. The capitalist has no choice in the
matter. Any capitalist who resists this will very soon not be in
business.
It seems ridiculous that it needs repeating that the sole and
essential aim and function of capitalist production, its only driving
force, is the making and maximisation of profit.
"Capital eschews no profit... just as Nature was formally said to
abhor a vacuum... A certain ten percent will ensure its employment
anywhere; 20% will produce eagerness; 50%, positive audacity; 100%
will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300% and there is
not a crime it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even the
chance of its owner being hanged."
(British economist T.J.Dunning, quoted in Marx's Capital.)
All people want the same thing - to live, happily, healthily,
comfortably, and with advancing ways of living and providing the
means of life. This, they do far better in cooperation than in
competitiion.
Man, like other successful species, whether ants or lions, is
cooperative by nature; achieving far more by cooperation than by
competition. Otherwise we couldn't grow bulk food or make aeroplanes.
No one can survive on their own, we need the cooperation of others,
in the division of labour our modern production has needed since
primitive communalism and a surplus over needs could be produced.
"Darwin's theory of the struggle for existence and the selectivity
connected with it has by many people been cited as authorisation of
the encouragement of the spirit of competition. Some people also in
such a way have tried to prove pseudo-scientifically the necessity of
the destructive economic struggle of competition between individuals.
But this is wrong, because man owes his strength in the struggle for
existence to the fact that he is a socially living animal. As little
as a battle between single ants of an ant hill is essential for
survival, just so little is this the case with the individual members
of a human community."
(Albert Einstein.)
"If we resort to an indirect test, and ask Nature: "Who are the
fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those
who support one another?" we at once see that those animals which
acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have
more chance to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes,
the highest development of intelligence and bodily organisation."
(Peter Kropotkin.)
"Go to the ants and be made wise."
(Plato.)

Socio-Economic Classes in Capitalist Society
The common notion of social class in Britain is always presented by
academia and the media only in the form of the Registrar General's
pointless sociological classification into upper, middle and working
class, further subdivided according to occupation and ridiculous
determinants like whether one hangs onions or porcelain ducks on the
kitchen wall.
It is interesting to note that out of all of this classification,
academia and the media only refer to the working class in comparison
with the other two sociological classes – upper and middle, carefully
never posing the socio-economic relationship between the working
class and the capitalist class.
Over a period of around 16 years since I was in teacher training in
the humanities, I have carefully watched and recorded very many
television documentaries and series about the nature of class in
British society. In all of these many hours of television devoted to
the subject, although the "working class" is mentioned continuously,
usually in comparison with the "middle class" and multitudes of other
meaningless class comparisons, I have almost never heard reference to
a capitalist class. I am waiting to see if, half way through the
current documrntary series on "class" fronted by that staunch Old
Labourite John Prescot, a capitalists class is mentioned.
When I took a sociology class during a tutor's absense, I was warned
not to refer to "any diversive" mention or comparison of social class
such as that "claimed by some trade unionists." This so obviously
referred to any Marxist notion of socio-economic class.
Presumably capitalists do not exist! Therefore capitalism does not
exist so let's not mention that either!
It is so obvious that this is a deliberately diversive confusion. (Or
a confusing diversion?) Anyway they do it on purpose!
Well, let's take a closer look and see what the Registrar General
beloved of the academic sociologists seems to have missed when they
ask: Are there really still classes? Hasn't social mobility now
become such that we are now a classless society? Surely it doesn't
matter whether you tilt the soup plate away from or towards you?
Well, let's look at it logically:
This is capitalist society; no one would be daft enough to deny that.
Therefore there are those who are capitalists – a capitalist class –
the bourgeoisie.
Agree so far?
It therefore follows that there are those who are not capitalists –
people who live on wages paid by a capitalist; in other words, the
working class, what Marx called proletarians or the proletariat.
Any problem with that?
What is the class difference between the two?
The capitalist class live on private profit extracted from human
labour.
The working class live on wages paid to them by capitalists.
So we have a capitalist class They own as their own private capital:
the land and its raw materials, the banks and other financial
institutions, the physical means of production and distribution –
factories, transport, energy production, retail, the media,
publishing, they own the products produced by these means of
production, and they own the profits made in that productive process.
Capitalists own the very means of subsistence of life.
On the other hand we have wage earning people: workers. (here it is
important to note that this term worker means by hand or by brain.
The working class in general (except for the relatively few self
employed who own their own small amount of means of production) own
nothing but their power to labour – by hand or by brain, for the
capitalist class, in order to produce the surplus value which the
capitalist appropriates as his profit, and who are completely
dependent upon the will of the capitalist for their entire means of
subsistence, whether they are cooks, bottle washers, factory workers,
teachers, computer operators, salesmen, secretaries, bus drivers,
business executives or high court judges.
The capitalist, owning the commodities produced by the means of
production, sells these on the "free" market. The worker also sells
the only commodity he has, his labour, on this same capitalist "free"
market. One gets his profits and still owns the whole means of
production and the commodities produced by it, and stays rich; the
other gets his wages and remains poor, and of course 'free'; free
only to work for another week for his capitalist boss or free to
starve if he prefers to.
The two have completely different and opposing economic aims. A
proper and logical analysis of socio-economic relations in capitalist
society reveals the only operating class division as between just
these two socio-economic classes – capital and labour – whose aims
are entirely opposite and contradictory. A capitalist wants to make
and maximise his profits by selling at the highest price and buying
at the lowest and paying the lowest wages. The working class on the
other hand want the highest wages and to buy things at the lowest
prices. This contradiction of socio-economic aims is what Marxists
call the class struggle.
There is another antagonistic issue. Once the market is saturated
with his products, the capitalist pulls out his capital and invests
it in another enterprise, with no obligation to the worker, who,
being merely a commodity in the capitalist productive process,
becomes unemployed until or unless he can find another capitalist to
work for.
At the end of each working week or productive cycle, the capitalist
retains his capital, the products, and the profit made, and has that
as his future prospects. The worker on the other hand, owns nothing
of this; only his wages, with which to buy back some of the means of
subsistence from capitalists. When this is spent, he has nothing, and
has to go cap in hand to the nearest capitalist for more of this
lovely thing called work.

The Historical Development of Ruling Economic Classes
Throughout history, the dominant philosophy in any society has always
been the philosophy of the ruling classes imposed on subordinate
classes.
So how do we find a philosophy that works for humanity, for the only
class that should exist – a working class? For a homogenous
population? For you and me?
Socially polarising contradictions between the social production of
wealth and the private appropriation of that wealth is not a new
thing.
"The State should take the entire management of commerce, industry,
and agriculture into its own hands, with a view of succouring the
working classes and preventing their being ground to the dust by the
rich."
(11th Century Chinese statesman Wang-An-Shih – Seven Centuries before
Marx.)
Primitive forms of communism existed in various historical forms.
Most, if not all, primitive tribes were communistic in nature by
necessity. Each member had a role to play in the survival and
economic needs of the group.
Only when there was a surplus of production did it become possible to
trade this surplus with other tribes or groups. This made it possible
for ownership of this surplus by a ruling minority.
Since the early primitive societies, historical stages have always
consisted of economic classes in a hierarchy of socio-economic
relationships: the one owning the means of production of wealth, the
other, owning no means of production themselves and are therefore
entirely dependent for their means of subsistence on and subservient
to the owning classes – owner and slave, patrician and plebian,
feudal landowner and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, and capitalist
and working class. In short: exploiter and exploited.
Then comes colonialism and its direct rule and appropriation of the
wealth of other peoples' lands, then so-called independence, where
local rulers supported and were supported by the old colonialists,
with the economy still owned or controlled by the imperial countries.
Now it is global imperialism – economic control backed up by
virtually unopposed military force.

Impossible Dynamics: Accumulated Capital In a Finite World
There is no such thing as perpetual motion.
The inherent dynamic of capitalism is such that capital cannot stand
still.
If it is not to stagnate and collapse, capital must continually re-
circulate, continuously accruing profits and becoming increased
capital. It must buy up and take over any competition and tend
towards monopolisation, ever onwards gaining more profits and
accruing vast amounts of spare capital concentrated in fewer and
fewer hands. It must then become colonialist and imperialist,
exporting this otherwise stagnant capital abroad, exploiting the
cheap labour, resources and plundering the wealth of other peoples.
Some, perhaps 100 corporations now own and control some 70 or 80
percent of the world's capital assets.
But the world is finite. Where then can capitalism expand to – the
moon? Perhaps that's what NASA has secretly been doing up there,
building a bank!
Indeed, capitalism could not have developed until the accumulation of
two important political economic necessities for its development were
in a well advanced state and polarised form. This already highly
polarised form existed in the accumulation of wealth as private
capital; and men who were "free" from serfdom and at the same
time "free" from the means of production – land, raw materials,
machinery; i.e: "free" from any other means of getting a living for
themselves except to sell their labour power for wages, or starve.
The feudal system broke down economically and socially, and the whole
socio-economic system then became more and more subordinated to the
rise in the political power of a capitalist class and the
corresponding comparative impoverishment of the working class.
It is the workers themselves who actually produce the wealth which
becomes the political power of capital over labour; instead of owning
that power themselves, as in socialism. In a true democracy, people
should control capital; not the other way round.

Other Capitalist Dynamic Necessities:
Colonialism, Imperialism, Fascism, World Poverty and Wars
"THEREFORE, when I consider and weigh in my mind all these
commenwealths, which now a days any where do florish, so God help me,
I can perceive nothing but a certein conspiracy of riche men
procuringe theire owne commodities under the name and title of the
commenwealth."
(Thomas Moore, Lord Chancellor of England, 1516.)
"Oh, where are you going to all you Big Steamers?
'We are going to fetch you your bread and your butter,
  Your beef, pork and mutton, eggs, apples and cheese...
  We fetch it from Melbourne, Quebec and Vancouver -
  Address us at Hobart, Hong Kong and Bombay.'...
'Then what can I do for you, all you Big Steamers,
  Oh, what can I do for your comfort and good?'
'Send out your big warships to watch your big waters,
  That no one may stop us from bringing you food'."
(Rudyard Kipling.)
"Thousands of our fellow subjects... are at this moment existing in a
state of slavery more horrid than are the victims of that hellish
system, colonial slavery... Thousands of little children... are daily
compelled to labour from 6 o'clock in the morning to 7 o'clock in the
evening with only – British, blush while you read it – with only 30
minutes allowed for eating and recreation."
(Slavery in Yorkshire, Leeds Mercury, 1830.)
The economics of the situation demanded that trade in slaves was not
abolished in Britain until 1807, once Britain had already established
itself as an immensely rich  colonial power. But slavery itself
continued perfectly legally for a further 26 years until it was
finally abolished in 1833.
This is how the immense wealth and power of British global capital
was built up – on slavery and the colonial and imperial plunder of
the wealth or the peoples of far away lands.
Our standard of living today solely and directly because of this.
"England has no permanent friends; she only has permanent interests."
(Lord Palmerston.)
"I was in the East End of London yesterday and attended a meeting of
the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches which were just a cry
for "bread, bread, bread", and on my way home I pondered over the
scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of
imperialism... My cherished idea is a solution for the social
problem. i.e: in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the UK
from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must aquire new lands
to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the
goods produced by them in the factories and mines. The Empire, as I
have always said, is a bread and butter problem. If you want to avoid
civil war, you must become imperialists."
(Millionaire financier Cecil Rhodes, 1895.)
"Believe me, the loss of our domination would weigh first of all on
the working classes of this country. We should see chronic misery let
loose. England would no longer be able to feed her enormous
population."
(Joseph Chamberlain, British Colonial Secretary, 1895.)
"Look how the whole capitalist world is stretching out long arms
towards the barbarous world and grabbing and clutching in eager
competition at countries whose inhabitants don't want them... It is
for the opening of fresh markets to take in all the fresh profit-
producing wealth which is growing greater and greater every day...
and I say this is an irresistable instinct on the part of the
capitalists, an impulse like hunger, and I believe that it can only
be met by another hunger, the hunger for freedom and fair play for
all... Anything less than that the capitalist power will brush aside."
(William Morris, May Day, 1896.)
"The income which we derive each year from commissions and services
rendered to foreign countries is over £65 million. In addition, we
have a steady revenue from foreign investments of close on £300
million a year... That is the explanation of the source from which we
are able to defray social services at a level incomparably higher
than that of any European country or any country."
(Winston Churchill, Budget speech, April 15 1929.)
"This war is not a war for a throne or an altar, this is a war for
grain and bread, a war for a well-laden breakfast, dinner and supper
table... a war for raw materials, for rubber, iron and ore."
(Joseph Goebbels. Munich 1943.)
"Those who could not look beyond their personal interests should
remember that their employment and standard of living depended mainly
on the existence of the Empire."
(Daily Telegraph Oct 23 1943.)
"We are great friends with the jolly old Empire and we are going to
stick to it."
(Labour Foreign Secretary Herbert Morrison, 1946.)
"I am not prepared to sacrifice the British Empire because I know
that if the British Empire fell... it would mean that the standard of
life of our constituents would fall considerably."
(Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, 1946.)
"I do not believe that anybody who has not seen with his own eyes,
can begin to imagine the poverty in which so many of our fellow
citizens of the Commonwealth are condemned to live."
(James Griffiths, former British Colonial Secretary, 1951.)
Should a nation whose wealth is built on the plunder of other
nations' wealth, slavery, wars of aggrandisement and atrocities,
child labour in mill and mine, so quickly abrogate itself from its
culpability and guilt?
Capitalism has to be imperialistic, ever finding new and cheaper
labour to exploit, and a market for the goods where there is only a
very limited purchasing power among the home country's working class.
As soon as this breaks down, especially when technology cannot keep
up with cheap labour to exploit, and limited and declining purchasing
power and therefore markets, the economy slows down and slumps,
sometimes with catastrophic results like the 1929 Wall Street crash.
The only way global capitalism. ie: imperialism, has survived such
crashes in the past is with wars, where the economy relies on
armaments production and the rebuilding of all the destruction after
a war. The US economy has been sustained on a war and armaments
footing since the end of the Second World War. The failure of the
USSR and its restraining military force and the power of its economic
force to help the poorer socialist countries and increase world
socialist economic relations is profound in meaning – possibly to the
detriment of us all in a nuclear war.
The system which forces the export of surplus socially produced
wealth in the form of private capital to exploit cheap labour in the
Third World is called imperialism. But people in poor countries do
not want to be exploited by foreign capital – to be stripped of their
raw materials and natural resources – whereby, due to the unequal
exchange of commodities, the product of ten hours of their labour
buys only the product of one hour of ours. What kind of freedom is
that?
Because of its inherent competitive and predatory and bellicose
nature, capitalism has always turned to war to attempt to solve its
problems.
"In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is
put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be
put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within
the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come
to an end."
(Karl Marx and Frederick Engels "The Communist Manifesto.")

Because You Were Never Told –
A Few Other Things You Didn't Know About Marxism
It is a human certainty that any person with a genuine love for every
human being on this planet, and who is intellectually mature and
academically honest, once it is accurately and faithfully explained
to them, would accept a Marxist philosophy as correct, and agree that
the world must eventually be a communist world if it is to survive
without a tragedy of colossal dimensions.

What Marxism Isn't
First, it is necessary to negate a few ignorant myths – propaganda
created and maintained by capitalism, its academics and media in
order to attempt to vilify Marxism by creating the illusion that
Marxism is just communist propaganda; to distort genuine Marxism in
the academic world and make genuine Marxism even more inaccessible to
any honest and intelligent enquiry.
It is easy to tell that critics of Marxist economics haven't read it
through or refuse to understand it by the stupid things they say
about it. For instance; they say that it has to be proved. So they
obviously think or deliberately suggest that Marxist economics is an
actual (communist) alternative to capitalism. Marxist economics is
not an alternative to bourgeois economics at all.
Marxism is not communism, nor is it about communism.
Marx did not provide a blueprint for a future egalitarian society;
nor is it abour predictions about the future. That's just a false
argument set up by Marxism's detractors so that they could knock it
down and "prove" it doctrinaire and wrong to the undiscerning.
Marxism is not about something to preach or indoctrinate people with
any more than we are indoctrinated with the fact of DNA or gravity or
that the earth is round.
Marxist economics is not, as is purported by capitalist ideology, a
plan or blueprint for communism.
Marxism is neither a plan nor a guide to communism. Marx hardly
mentions the word; which originally came from the Paris Communes of
1792 and 1871 during the French Revolution.
Marxism is a philosophy, a system of validation of knowledge. It is
about inherent laws – just like the laws of Newton and Einstein
inherent in physics – gravity and relativity, Marx's labour theory of
value is an inherent, immutable and irrefutable law of human socio-
economic relations.
Marxist economics, or more correctly, Marxist economic philosophy,
also known as political economy, is a full exposé of capitalism,
explaining exactly how it works. Not in terms of business studies or
accounting, which is merely a rationalisation of the capitalist
system, but in terms of human socio-economic relations within society
and between societies.
Marxism is an explanation of capitalism and therefore implies
communism as its counterpart. Implementing communism is left to the
rest of mankind, and has been attempted or practiced in various forms
in various countries to varying degrees of success. Hence Leninism,
Trotskyism, and the different forms of socialism such as Cuba's Fidel
Castro and Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh; Mao's China, and the former
socialist world of the European socialist countries such as the
Soviet Union, the GDR (East Germany), Czechoslovakia, Hungary and so
on.
Marxism is not about terrorism. Acts of terror are a complete
anathema to Marxism. Marxism is about mass participation in economic
and political power.
Acts of terror carried out by supposed left wing groups are not a
Marxist concept; and have only been called so in order to alienate
people from Marxism. Individual acts of terror is anarchism, not
Marxism. The Baader Meinhoff Red Brigades group in Europe in the
1970s and Pol Pot were called Marxist or communist by the media in
order to discredit genuine notions of Marxism and communism. Pol Pot
and the Baader Meinhoff group and similar organisations and groups,
mostly set up or funded by the CIA for the very purpose of obtaining
anti-Marxist and anti-communist propaganda, were fascists – the
opposite of communist.
Another word so misused and distorted in the context of Marxism is
revolution.
A revolution is a change of focus, of ideas and thinking, of economic
and political power. Thus we have had the industrial revolution, the
electronic revolution, the information revolution of computers and
the web, and various political revolutions including the English
Revolution of 1640.
Revolution, in a social or economics sense is a change of focus, or a
transfer of economic or/and political power.
Revolution in a Marxist sense is a change of economic and political
power with the greatest possible support and involvement of the
overwhelming majority of the population.
How this is achieved is not a matter of Marxism; which only tells us
what's wrong, not what we should do about it. Marx was a
revolutionary in the intellectual and theoretical sense, just like
Darwin or Einstein. Gravity being Newton's theory, it was for the
Wright brothers to use the theory and learn from practice in order to
overcome it.
Revolution in a political economic sense is left by Marxism to
others.
In the case of the Soviet Union, this was led by Lenin – Leninism,
which takes Marxist theory as given, and by implication, conducted
what Lenin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union saw at the
time as the most likely way to implement the transfer of power from
capitalists to the whole population. Most communist revolutions have
been necessarily of armed struggle (you can just as effectively
insert socialist here so long as it is in a Marxist sense rather than
the non-Marxist fairy tale of the British Labour Party's social
democracy – whatever that is supposed to mean; but it was never a
transfer of economic or political power to the whole population in
any sense, let alone a Marxist one), rather than any kind of
parliamentary struggle.
As the British communist party's document: "The British Road to
Socialism" sets out as the party policy, such a change of economic
and therefore political power in Britain would be by democratic
parliamentary means. And there have been at lease three Communist
Party MPs in Parliament. Didn't know that did you? Not your fault
though.
A parliamentary road to socialism might be derided in a British
situation by saying: Oh yes mate; the British Army, who it is to be
noted swears allegiance not to the public, not even to Parliament,
but to the Monarch, will just stand by and the Monarchy will just go
and live in a council block in Hackney!
However, let's leave Tellytubby land and learn a little from history
and summise that even a parliamentary revolution, with 100 percent
Communist MPs elected by the overwhelming majority of the population
to carry out any road to socialism, will sooner or later have British
Army tanks on the streets and US helicopter gunships in the air.
Witness the tanks and military presence around places like Heathrow
when it was feared that the Wilson Labour Government was led by
Moscow!
But let's be serious.
"Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that
of self interest backed by force."
(George Bernard Shaw.)
A condition of Britain receiving US Marshall Aid after the war was
that Britain cooperated militarily with the United States. In order
to keep themselves in power, the pseudo-socialist Labour governments
of Europe and Britain pandered fully to US dollars and voted the US
way in any UN or other negotiations.
How many European countries have secret treaties or agreements which
are not openly written into their constitutions, (Britain remains one
of the only countries in the world which does not have a written
legal constitution or a Bill of Rights), but such as the FRG (West
Germany) – that NATO forces of another country have the right to
intervene if the interests of NATO are considered to be threatened –
eg. by the coming to power of a socialist, neutralist or non-aligned
government, or one that wanted to remove US nuclear weapons and
bases, or get out of NATO?
"Do you know what would have happened then? You may read about this
in the Bonn Treaty on relations between the FRG and the Western
powers… the rights of the Allies [in BM.] …a state of emergency.
According to this treaty the Federal Government 'in case of serious
violation of public security and order' shall first use its police
force and if it cannot restore order and, in addition, in the opinion
of the three powers, a threat arises to the armed forces of the
Western allies, their commanders have a right immediately to take
respective protective measures, including the use of arms, needed for
removing this threat. You see that even 'a serious threat of
violation of the free, democratic order' is sufficient to impose a
state of emergency. ...if there was an uprising in the FRG
threatening the Constitution and the FRG's NATO membership the
Americans would the very next day intervene in our country."
(Henri Nannan, publisher, in his journal Stern, FRG, Jan 1982.)
"...including the ability to deal with a serious disturbance of
public security and order."
(From Article 5 of the "Convention On Relations Between The Three
Powers And The Federal Republic Of Germany" as amended by the Paris
Agreements of October 1954.)
"In case the Federal Republic and the European Defence Community are
unable to deal with the situation which is created by... subversion
of the liberal democratic basic order, a serious disturbance of
public order, or a grave threat of any of these events, and which in
the opinion of the Three Powers endangers the security of their
forces, the Three Powers may, ...proclaim a state of emergency...
Independently of a state of emergency, any military commander may, if
his forces are imminently menaced, take such immediate action
appropriate... to remove the danger."
(From Article 5 of the original Bonn Treaty.)
"In the present situation it is certainly the internal unrest,
sabotage and civil war type conflicts, that is, local disturbances in
their broadest sense, which under certain circumstances could most of
all endanger the Eastern borders of the NATO bloc."
(W.Ritter von Schramm, Der Deutsche Soldat. Flensberg 1961.)
"The draft of the committee enables the executive to deploy the armed
Bundeswehr inside the country and to misuse it for internal political
aims - without having obtained the sanction of parliamentary
authority. The armed forces may not only be deployed for police
tasks, but also internally 'with weapons'. The decision rests with
the federal government because if any such action becomes topical it
is always possible to say that 'the situation required this sort of
immediate action'."
(Frankfurter Rundschau, 26 April 1965.)
When discussions on ratifying the North Atlantic Treaty were held, US
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Dean Acheson stated that one
of NATO's chief aims was to prevent what it called aggression "by an
election or a coup" or of "conquest through persuasion." And the NATO
Commander in Chief in Central Europe in 1956 referred to NATO as a
shield against the "infiltration of ideas." Various NATO "leaks" to
the press in 1970 stated that the US in Europe could resort to
sabotage and subversion and other warfare in the event of "emergency
situations" and if necessary take full power and bring any weapons
onto a country's territory, including chemical and biological
weapons, use all information available and suppress any
movement "threatening US strategic interests." A US document
published in the Italian press in 1981 showed that of over 23,000
missile targets only about 2,500 were in Warsaw Pact countries.
Soon after Marshall Aid was agreed by the US Congress, Britain and
the US had secret talks on NATO in the Pentagon in 1949. These
discussions were only made public in 1979. In the documents of these
discussions NATO's class war policy is clearly stated that:
"The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of
them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security
of any of the Parties [ie: Capitalism B.M.] is threatened."
(From Clause 4 of the Constitution of the North Atlantic Treaty
(NATO).)
Thus the European capitalist leaders have given the US and NATO the
right to intervene diplomatically, economically, and finally
militarily in any "political change favourable to an aggressor" in
any NATO country. In other words, the election or otherwise coming to
power of any real (ie: Marxist) Socialist government or any
government committed to and actually implementing disarmament in any
West European country.
And "territorial integrity" includes colonial or neo-colonial
territories. The people of the British Commonwealth territory of the
tiny island of Grenada know full well what the extent of the
application of NATOs Clause 4 means.
It is also important to understand and point out that this means that
it is only necessary that the "political independence or security" of
any NATO or NATO dominated country is judged to be "threatened" not
by the country concerned, but by "any one of them".
"Article Four is even more important. This, with no regional
limitations, provides that if there is any situation anywhere which
appears to affect the security of any member, they will all consult
on what action to take... If developments in Burma, or the Malay
peninsula led America, Britain or France to feel her security was
threatened, she could call a conference of Atlantic Powers... Should
the Italian Government fear that Communist sabotage threatened its
political independence, it could call a meeting of the Atlantic
Powers with the possibility that joint action would be taken to meet
the danger."
(Daily Telegraph March 23 1949.)
There is no doubt that in the event of civil unrest in any West
European country not being able to be contained by the forces of "law
and order" of that country the US would intervene. With the collusion
of European "socialist" governments, the US has the right to be the
world's anti-Communist policeman.
A group of wealthy and powerful people which has such fears and
responds to them with such contingency plans is already on the
slippery slope to a repetition of the rise of Fascism as in in
Germany in the 1920s and 1930s or a world war as in 1939 to 1954 and
beyond.

What Marxism Is
Marxism is a philosophy. A philosophy is a system of knowledge, a way
of looking at the world, how we validate phenomena, how we understand
our world and society. Marxism is not mere belief, it is not an
idealistic philosophy like those favoured by capitalism. Marxism is a
scientific philosophy, based on what actually happens and exists in
concrete reality.
Marxism applied to human society is primarily a philosophy of socio-
economic relations and their social and psycho-social effects. It
answers the question – why is human society like it is.
For human society, Marx's most useful discovery and essential
achievement was to expose the workings of capitalism in its socio-
economic relations between people in society, essentially between the
two socio-economic classes. For it is socio-economic relations that
are the determinants that underpin and permeate all other aspects of
society – education and upbringing, the family, relationships,
friendships, social norms, morals and behaviour, culture, the
hierarchy of social structure and class, social psychology, the law,
crime, foreign relations, race, standard of living and quality of
life, health and welfare – everything in society that affects each of
us as an individual. All these aspects of life have been reduced by
capitalist socio-economic relationships to what Marx termed the "cold
cash nexus" in all human relationships – not just business or trade
relationships.

A Scientific Philosophy
Marxism is a scientific philosophy. That is, it validates things,
phenomena, and itself, scientifically.
Philosophers for centuries have argued about the nature of the world –
  how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether angels
have navels, but the point is, as Karl Marx remarked, to change it.
To understand anything in order to have some effect on it or change
it, you have to have a system of validating things – a philosophy.
This philosophy, if it is to be of any use at all, has to be
scientific in nature. Marxist scientific philosophy is called
dialectical materialism.
One can interpret phenomena, for instance, historical events, in
various ways – by seeing them as a series of unconnected accidents,
the designs of great men, planned by gods or visitors from outer
space. One can be a spiritualist, a fatalist, an idealist, or a
dialectical materialist.
Whatever philosophy one adopts, sooner or later, one has got to find
an effective method of understanding phenomena. For this we need
analytical tools, measurement, a system of validation, and a language
to suit. So we measure water temperature with a thermometer, the
hardness of metals with a Rockwell guage; we ask for a spade when we
want to dig, and a shovel when we want to move the dug earth out of
the way, otherwise digging holes for trees and No Parking signs would
be more difficult, wasteful and time consuming.
Philosophy is the discipline of validating phenomena. There are only
two basic schools of thought within the discipline of philosophy; and
all philosophies fall under one or the other. Found in science, they
are most apparent in the humanities – economics, sociology, history,
anthropology, evolution and natural studies.
These two basic philosophical schools of thought are called the
idealists and the materialists. Within the discipline of philosophy
these two words, idealist and materialist, are used slightly
differently from the way they are used in ordinary language. In
ordinary language, an idealist is a person who wants to do good works
for the world without regard for what other people call reality; and
a materialist is a person who cares less for the world but wants to
accumulate material possessions.
To explain the meanings of these two words within philosophy we can
consider a story which I use early in humanities courses. It is
certainly valid and essential in the study of economics.
Two primitive men were standing on the side of a mountain discussing
a thunder storm in the next valley. One says that: "whoever can make
such banging and flashing must be big and powerful and might harm us,
we'd better please him. Tonight we'll leave some food on a rock for
him." Of course, next morning the food was gone – as in the wild it
was bound to be, and his ideas were reinforced. The other said he
thought it was simply particles in the clouds crashing into each
other. I'm no meteorologist, but I simplistically understand that
lightning burns out a corridor of the oxygen or atmosphere through
which it passes, and the thunder is the surrounding atmosphere
rushing in to fill the vacuum. So both were wrong in a way. The man
who talked of demons or gods or some powerful being to whome we must
pay homage was philosophically the idealist. He was attempting to
explain a phenomena purely by the ideas he could imagine inside his
mind without reference to any outside reality, fact or substance.
Herein lie the origins of superstition, and on which much religion is
based. The man who said it was particles in the clouds crashing into
each other may have been wrong in terms of the science of
meteorology, but he was trying to understand a phenomena by
scientifically verifiable fact, by material means. Philosophically he
was the materialist.
Examples of idealistic thinking can be found in, for instance, von
Daniken's theory that the Nazca lines across the Peruvian desert are
purported (by von Daniken) to prove that the earth was visited by
superior beings from outer space before the existence of mankind. The
fact that straight lines can be made across vast extents of the most
undulating terrain by a single person with the use of three sticks
seems to have escaped von Daniken.
Marxism is a scientific philosophy. It formulates its theories and
answers questions in a scientific way, using scientific methods and
verifiable scientific argument, proved in practice. With Marxism,
theory and practice come together, one derived from the other;
looking at practice – what actually happens – to find theory, and for
theory to inform further practice. This is how most science is
conducted.
One can nail all manner of paper and string together like Icarus and
try to fly. But unless one considers the laws of gravity,
aerodynamics and power to weight ratios, one will not get off the
ground.
Likewise one cannot understand economic society, except from a narrow
capitalist business accounting point of view, without a scientific
way of looking at the whole subject.
But the world is not so difficult for mankind to understand if we
have a scientific way of understanding it – a scientific philosophy.
"The most remarkable thing about the world is that you can understand
it."
(Einstein.)
And that's the nature of Marxism – understanding the world from a
scientific philosophy.
"The philosophers have hitherto interpreted the world in different
ways. The point is, however, to change it."
(Inscription on Karl Marx's tomb in Highgate Cemetery in North
London.)
Einstein also said that the most abundant things in the universe are
oxygen and stupidity.
Overcoming the stupidity is simply a matter of learning to
distinguish truth from an overwhelming mass of baby talk posing as
social and economic science.

It's Much Easier Than You Think –
Being Paid To Read Marx While Unemployed:
Now There's Capitalist Freedom For You!
In my pre-college factory and school maintenance worker days I had
long begun to want answers to social questions. Thinking that is was
something to do with the psychology of my situation I began to read
psychology. I came to the conclusion that most peoples' psychological
problems, at least on the neurotic side, were really social problems –
  the sufferer's inability to fit in with the society in which he
found himself – including my own attempts. Reading sociology,
including my first attempt at academia in O level sociology evening
classes, I came to a conclusion that sociology was a confusing load
of twaddle and that most sociological problems were really people's
economic problems. Reading a few beginner's books on economics and
enrolling on another year's evening classes, I found myself none the
wiser as "economics" appeared to follow sociology wandering aimlessly
round in useless circles.
Unemployed one whole summer in the mid 1970s, I took up the
suggestion of a communist mate that I could find better answers
reading Marx; emphasising that I should read the original Marx, not
what he called the academic pseudo-Marxism of the mainstream syllabus
books I had read so far. I spent the summer reading Marx on a park
bench right outside my local dole office.
Now there's capitalist freedom for you!
I learned by reading the original Marx. For the bombed out brain of
an East End kid who received a bombed out education between the gas
works and the pork pie factory, where I was taught just enough
vocabulary to understand the instructions on factory machines –
  "Start, Fast, Faster, Much Faster, No Tea Breaks Allowed, More
Profits," although this was a little difficult at first, since Marx
wrote in the vernacular of his time, I found it became easy to
understand.
When reading Marx, it is essential to understand that Marx's early
works reflect his own progress at understanding the hidden inner
workings of capital. And it is between "Wage Labour and Capital"
written in 1891 and "Wages Price and Profit" written in 1898 that
Marx discovered the essential point of departure into it as a fully
developed scientific theory that the previous classical economists
such as Adam Smith had fallen short of.
Two things arise out of this.
One is that professional capitalist detractors as well as dilettantes
and dabblers use Marx's earlier work to prove Marxism wrong. And
capitalism gets very good propaganda mileage out of it, which
explains why these dodgy academics are so highly paid, honoured and
feted.
The other is that enthusiastic readers who optimistically and boldly
plough into "Capital" (Das Kapital) become bogged down and
disillusioned and give up after chewing and plodding through maybe
the first 50 pages of volume one, and there are two more volumes to
go, not realising that the three volumes of Capital (Vol 1: 1859, Vol
2: 1885 published by Engels after Marx's death (in 1883) and Vol 3:
1894 also published by Engels) also span Marx's own development and
understanding, and the masses of preliminary and supporting evidence,
and embraces the whole main mass of Marx's excellent and
comprehensive analysis of every aspect of capilalism's workings and
dynamics, and its wide ranging social effects and political aspects.
To understand Marx's scientific explanation of socio-economic
relations between capital and labour, it is not necessary to read any
of Das Kapital. It's much easier than that. All that's necessary for
an immutable grasp of the real relationship between capital and
labour is the reading of two of Marx's, in the 1980s 50 pence,
pamphlets: "Wage Labour and Capital" and "Wages Price and Profit" in
conjunction with John Eaton's "Political Economy" published in the US
in 1966.
I pored over these while making a few notes and diagrams to aid my
understanding while sitting in the park that summer on the dole.
Other books worth reading are Karl Marx: "Economic and Philosophical
Manuscripts", "A Contribution to the Critiques of Political
Economy", "The Poverty of Philosophy", and Friedrich Engels: "On
Marx's Capital", "Anti Duhring", "The Dialectics of Nature", "The
Condition of the English Working Class in England", and Marx and
Engels "The Communist Manifesto." Add Maurice Cornforth's books on
Marxist philosophy and you will be reading the whole lot for a couple
of years if you have the time. They are books that anybody either
deeply interested in or mildly fascinated with the humanities – all
aspects of human life and its use of science and most other academic
disciplines, including maths, philosophy, economics, sociology,
history, psychology, law, education and learning, anthropology,
paleantology, natural history, evolution, organics, botany, science,
chemistry, astronomy, the earth's rotation, lunar cycles and tides,
physics, electricity, and much else will find to stimulate and
fascinate the enquiring mind.
The widely ranging dedicated works of the lifetimes of the Marx and
Engels partnership have influenced many other famous thinkers and
scientists, writers, journalists, educators, teachers, poets and
artists, including Darwin, Einstein, Freud, Salvador Dali, Berthold
Brecht, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, Nehru,
Nelson Mandela, to name only a few.
After about three years of running my own car repair and 24 hour
breakdown service, which lined my pockets nicely but bored me to
death, I literally gave the whole business, including contracts with
garages, the AA, RAC and the police for removing crashed vehicles, to
three co-workers who worked with me on a co-operative basis, I was
accepted as a mature student on degree and diploma courses.
Once I got to college I began to see how genuine Marxism is kept
hidden, and pseudo or neo-Marxism is presented in its place.
It became my experience that most British academic "Marxists", have
never read a word of Marx himself. Instead, they read each others'
great academic treatises that exist in abundance on academic
bookshelves, libraries and bookshops. Even at my most fervent
political and academic learning and study, I found trying to read
these academic pseudo-Marxists a misleading load of unanswered
confusion. And from the point of view of a concerned factory worker
trying to understand issues of socio-economic relations of his own
working experience, I have to conclude that this is deliberate.
It is also my experience, even when as a member of the communist
party, that too few people, even too many long standing party members
who called themselves Marxists, have any useful understanding of even
basic Marxist ecomonics at all.
Was this deliberate too? I once heard it joked that the British
secret services had more of their own academic Marxists in the party
than real party members!
"Agitations of the public mind… do not end in nothing… Therefore be
content to guide the movement which you cannot stop."
(English statesman Thomas Macaulay, speech on the Reform Bill, 1831.)
In my first year in college during the trendy leftie years of the
late 1970s the library was full of Marxist books, including the full
works of Marx and Engels as well as Lenin. The Nazis would have
openly just burned them outside in the streets. Two years later into
the Thatcher years the original Marx works had diminished down to a
few books and the shelves were full of pseudo Marxist books written
by professional revisionists; and my department went all Popperian.
(anti-Marxist philosopher Karl Popper, who said in effect that just
because the sun rose yesterday doesn't mean that it will rise
tomorrow, Compare this with Marxist philosophy that says things will
happen when conditions engender their happening.)
"Our aim is to drive socialism – Marxist socialism – from our land. …
a massive propaganda campaign such as we have never yet mounted
before against the spread of communism."
(Margaret Thatcher.)
Margaret Thatcher was in good company:
"I wished to be the destroyer of Marxism. I will achieve this task…
We have taken the unalterable decision to tear Marxism out by its
roots."
(Adolf Hitler.)
"We shall not only exterpate this plague. We shall tear the
word "Marxism" out of every book. In fifty years time no one in
Germany is to know what that word means."
(Herman Goering.)
"Bolshevism is knocking at our gates. We can't afford to let it in.
We have got to organise ourselves against it… We must keep America
whole and safe and unspoiled. We must keep the worker away from red
literature and red ruses; we must see that his mind remains healthy."
(Al Capone.)
"The Church has condemned the various forms of Marxist Socialism...
because it is her permanent right and duty to safeguard men from
currents of thought and influence that jeopardise their eternal
salvation."
(Pope Pius XII.)
"The roots of the Hitlerite movement is the struggle against
socialism, in other words against Marxism."
(Nazi Steel and electrics boss Karl Friederick von Siemens. Perhaps
you have one of his dishwashers!)
"It is one of the foremost aims of the NSDAP [Hitler's National
Socialist German Workers' Party B.M.] to overcome and destroy the
Marxist world outlook, and to liquidate its chief exponents."
(Hitler's chief Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg.)
Why is capital so afraid of Marzism? Perhaps the following has
something to do with it:
"Education is dangerous. It is enough if they can count up to a
hundred. At best an education which produces useful stooges for us is
admissible."
(Adolf Hitler.)
"It is chiefly intended that the practical lesson, that they (the
working classes) are destined to earn their livelihood by the sweat
of their brow shall be inculcated."
(J.K.Shuttleworth, 1833.)
"The greater amount of education which a part of the working class
has employed for some years past, is an evil. It is dangerous because
it makes them independent."
(British glassworks owner J.Geddes, 1865.)
"An educated proletariat is a constant source of disturbance and
danger to any nation."
(US educator, Nobel Prize winner Nicholas Murray Butler.)
"With politics let loose among those peoples, we may have a wave of
disorder and wholesale Communism set going all over those parts of
Europe."
(South African Prime Minister Jan Smuts.)
"It is education and undesirable literature, these are our enemies…
The more educated people are and the more they know, the greater
their expectations. And that is dangerous for the State and our
economy."
(Fascist dictator of Portugal Antonio Salazar.)
  "What are our schools for if not indoctrination against Communism?"
(US President Richard Nixon.)
"Libraries? They don't want libraries. Give em' a circus. "
(Lord Salisbury, when public libraries were proposed.)
"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery. None but ourselves can
free our minds."
(Bob Marley "Redemption Song.")
Lord Salisbury's view still prevails today in the ideology and ethics
of British education.
The whole nature of British education has always been that of dumbing
down the minds of ordinary people working. Later in life the media
carries on this task. Even if you go on to higher education or
university, you will not find much to threaten establishment views
prominently displayed or in abundance.
After spending two weeks in that hallowed centre of economic study in
the UK – the London School of Economics, I concluded that 99 percent
of the books on the LSE library shelves should have been under the
label of business studies or accounting – not economics. Such
mainstream so-called economics is merely capitalist private business
accounting, and has become so far removed from the established
subject of economics, that the respected and renowned classical
economists of the days of David Ricardo and Adam Smith would be
turning in their graves. So much has their work been corrupted.
I only finally understood economics, or more correctly, economic
philosophy, also called political economy, as a science of socio-
economic relations, after reading Ricardo, Adam Smith and Marx.
Despite the attempts of education to keep my mental ability narrowly
defined, and despite my college tutors, some calling themselves
Marxists but merely academic revisionists, the essence of Marx's
explanation of capitalist economics came clear to me.
Unlike most of the books I found at LSE, which seemed to be nothing
more than attempts rationalise the subject of economics into an
apology for business accounting and the making and maximisation of
private profit, I found Marxist economics to be a scientific theory
as immutable and irrefutable as Newton's theory of gravity,
Einstein's theory of relativity and Darwin's theory of evolution.
However, unlike gravity and relativity, accepted by established
political power without question because it was of use to them; just
as Darwin's theory of evolution threatened the political power of the
church, Marx's thorough examination of capitalism has immense
political consequences and poses the most serious ideological threat
to capitalism as a political power.

The Real Socialist Alternative
Capitalism is completely anarchic. It has one sole aim – the pursuit
of profits. It has nothing to do with the satisfaction of human
needs; only the needs of capitalists.
Socialist systems on the other hand, are planned economies. They are
planned to satisfy human needs in order of priorority of
essentiality. In the socialist world, the people know that they can
consume only what they themselves produce. So production must be
planned and increased accordingly. Unlike capitalist society, where
the rich have sea-going yachts and private jets while comparative
millions starve, the rationale of socialist society is that none
shall have cake before all have bread.
When poor countries have communist revolutions, their first
priorities are to see that all people have food, education and
health, housing, transport, jobs, all at the basic necessary levels.
A decent infrastructure and enviroment needs to be created and
maintained. Then there are improvements to be made in production and
technology so that people can have what are now considered life's
necessities – fridges, washing machines and so on, and comforts,
sport and leisure, holidays, luxuries, cars, hi-fis, mobile phones,
and so on. Life for everybody improves all the time.
Under socialism there are no longer classes with conflicting economic
interests. One class produces what it owns, and owns what it produces.
In an advanced socialist society there is no more private
appropriation of wealth as private profit. Wealth produced by the
nation goes to the whole nation, for the democratic use of the entire
population. The people create what they, the people, need; and
distribute it accordingly. For instance, every Soviet citizen is an
equal shareholder in the Aeroflot airline, and all shared its
profits.
Because of its social planning, socialism is a far more efficient and
effective means of production and distribution of commodities in its
production and satisfaction of all people's needs. Where as
capitalism is ridiculously inefficient, chaotic and anarchistic.
"Capitalism did not arise because capitalists stole the land or the
workmen's tools, but because it was more efficient than feudalism. It
will perish because it is not merely less efficient than socialism,
but actually self-destructive."
(J.B.S.Haldane.)
In an advanced planned economy such as the Soviet Union, of course
mistakes are made. One area of town might end up with too many
saucepans in the shops and not enough toothbrushes. But these are
planning or bureaucratic mistakes, blunders and shortcomings, and can
be overcome within the system. But they are not inherent in the
system. They are not through failing profits or overproduction or
competition or dumping or shortages created to keep prices and
profits high and wages low as under capitalism. They are failings and
inefficiencies within the system and not failings of the system.
Great propaganda was made over the restrictions on travel imposed by
some communist governments. The shooting of escapees across the
Berlin wall was a great tragic mistake by the GDR authorities, and
gave the western media great destructive and damaging propaganda for
modern communist attitudes.
Some western journalists in a Moscow hotel were chatting to a group
of agricultural and construction students from the GDR when a British
gutter press "journalist" brought up the subject of foreign travel
for professionals in socialist countries. One young student gave him
a lesson in economic reality. He said that a doctor in the GDR goes
through school, college, 3 years of degree study, more years medical
training, and so on, all his living and education costs and support
coming from the work of others; and asked what he thought manual
workers like himself feel about the trained cdoctor wanting to go and
earn big money in the West, saying "do you thnk we'd all say "sure,
have a nice time, send us a postcard!"?"
Cuba, on the other hand, has a different approach to what the west
called "dissidents." I think it was in the 1970s that great
propaganda was made over Cuban émigrés – the sort who in pre-
revolutionary times had been rich businessmen, gangsters and drug
traffickers and other disfunctionals. From a community worker in Cuba
I learned that Cuba's approach was that if any of them could get
accepted by other countries they could leave. Most ended up
in "Little Havana" in Miami's casino and night club district. Cuban
people's attitude was that if you "gusanos" (worms) don't want to
help build a socialist society in Cuba, then go; but don't come back
to Cuba when you need medical attention. I heard stories of Cubans
lining up to spit at them as they were bussed out of Havana.
Capitalists like to put competition and entrepreneurial notions as a
driving force.
But all people want the same thing – to live, happily, healthily,
comfortably, and with advancing ways of living and providing the
means of life. This, they do far better cooperatively that
competitively.
There's another interesting point. Not all capitalists and their
economists are stupid. They would have sensibly read Marx and
understood it, and recognised it to be correct. They must do. They
would be stupid not to have. With such knowledge, intelligent
individuals in the US and other capitalist governments will have been
preparing for the dwindling power of capitalism for years, probably
from the second world war or even before. The US has put a cap on its
own national oil supplies and holds them is reserve for the
inevitable day when that will be all they will have, just as
Thatcher's Britain closed down coal mining while we use up cheap coal
from abroad. The US has been securing oil by making excuses to invade
oil rich countries such as in the Middle East. Venezuela will also be
high on the list; doubly so, since it is not only rich in oil, but is
hated by the US since it is embarking on a socialist road and a more
equitable society.

But They Collapsed Didn't They? See! Socialism doesn't Work.
Yeah But the Soviet Union and the European socialist countries
collapsed.
Yes; that's history so far.
Socialism has been in existence for 90 years if we take it right from
the Russian Revolution of 1917. From the start it embarked on massive
production of steel and energy, building dams and hydro-electric
power stations, perhaps thousands of miles of waterways and canals,
rail and road networks, and other infrastructure, massive factories,
new towns and cities, housing, health, education and literacy for
all, guaranteed employment for all, guaranteed pensions two thirds of
wages; where, before the revolution, under capitalism the majority
were illiterate peasants. It is easy to see evidence of early
planning in just one example, where most cities have very wide main
roads in preparation for when the population would have cars. It was
also Soviet technology that put the first satellite into space and
the first man into space.
Compare those achievements in 90 years with capitalism, which started
some three centuries ago; yet for the overwhelming majority of the
world's population, it hasn't solved a single problem.
To refer to the former socialist countries as "proof" that socialism
doesn't work is to observe attempts at manned flight from Icarus
onwards and say "see, it doesn't work" – a completely illogical
presumption. The quest for manned flight collapsed many times before
the Wright Brothers found a way to get it right. Eddison failed in
his many early attempts to invent the light bulb. But when we
understand in theory that something is scientifically valid, then it
is just a matter of finding a way. The Wright Brothers proved the
theory of manned flight by understanding the scientific laws of
gravity, aerodynamics and power-to-weight ratios. Edison found that
the filament would not burn out if it was contained in a vacuum or
inert gas. Air disasters and light bulbs going pop do not disprove
the scientific theories they are based on any more than the collapse
of the USSR disproves Marxism or socialism.
And so, Marxism shows what is wrong with capitalism. It needs a
socialist minded population and the right kind of political party –
socialist, communist, people's, The Tooting Popular Front – call it
what you like – to put a socialist alternative into practice.
Besides, is capitalism working for the 70 or 80 percent overwhelming
majority of mankind after some three centuries of its existence?
The European socialist world collapsed because of a crippling arms
race, corrupt individuals, their buying into capitalist loans, the
combination of which crippled the aims of the CMEA (Council for
Mutual Economic Achievement – what the West called Comecon), which,
similar to the integrated capitalist aims of the EEC, the G8 or the
Trilateral Commission, was the planned socialist integration of the
socialist world as an economically integrated efficient whole.
Various socialist countries were experienced and well placed
environmentally and climatically, well placed at producing certain
commodities – Icarus buses from Hungary were seen throughout the
socialist world, as were optics from the GDR (East Germany), oil,
timber and technology from the USSR, sugar, citrus fruits,
agricultural machinery (eg: the first automated sugar harvester) and
medicines and pharmaceuticals from Cuba, tin and tungsten from
Vietnam are a few examples. A certain stagnation occurred in the
advanced European socialist countries while their economies back
peddled and consolidated while diverting its advanced economic and
technical wealth and resources into the newer and poorer socialist
countries like Cuba and Vietnam, so that all could then advance
faster on a broader and more powerful integrated economic front.
OK the Soviet Union is disintegrated right now. But each former
Soviet republic still has a powerful and influential Communist Party,
and there is a great nostalgia among the people for the certainties
of the old communist days. When I was last in Uzbekistan in Soviet
Central Asia, on the wall of a building opposite our favourite café
was a two feet square portrait of Gorbachev beside a new painting of
Stalin three stories tall. Beside the Kremlin walls where are buried
previous Soviet leaders, you will find the biggest bunches of flowers
on Stalin's grave. OK some of his methods might not have been
necessary to our way of thinking. But it was under Stalin's
leadership that Soviet production was such that it was able to defeat
the Nazi armies where Britain and the US could not have done. And who
put the first satellite and the first man in space? And all this
achievement started only 20 years after the Russian Revolution of
1917, before which 90 percent of the population were illiterate
peasants.
The first steps of every socialist revolution is to educate the
masses to the truth of their situation. The crucial stage is when the
masses become literate and can receive printed information. And it is
often at this stage that the US tries to smash such revolutions - eg:
Chile's Allende government and the US imposition of Pinochet after a
mass literact program and mass televised ecucation, likewise the US
attempt at smashing Cuba in the 1960s Bay of Pigs invasion after
Cuba's first priority policy of 100 percent literacy – sending
students into the countryside to teach the population to read and
write, following which was the so-called Cuban missile crisis; and
later after similar programs in Nicaragua and other Latin American
countries – all crushed by the US, such as the CIA coup against
Allende's Chile after a television station was taken over by the
socialist government and started broadcasting education and social
and community news to the whole population.
Except for those who are mentally incapable, Cuba has full literacy,
compare this with atrocious literacy rate, first of all in the US, in
Britain and the advanced capitalist world. Cuba also excels in
health, with one doctor per 650 head of population. It also leads the
world in some branches in pharmaceuticals, including a cure for a
type of meningitis denied to British children who die of it because
of the US imposed embargo the British Government also signs up to.
It might be illustrative to compare the reason why the USSR
has "collapsed" and Cuba hasn't.
The reasons, in my opinion, for the collapse of the USSR, are: a
certain complacency, in that "we have made it" and can relax a bit; a
serious lack in Marxist led education; and an economically
prohibitive security and arms race led by the West, and dabbling in
unmanageable Western loans and finance. Remember, the USSR lost
almost everything in the war against Nazism, the whole country, every
city, factory and farm was destroyed and had to be rebuilt without
any help from the West which received billions of dollars of US
Marshall Aid.
One failure in my opinion and experience was in education. I visited
an English language school in Zaporozhe. I was unemployed at the
time. At a question and answer session in the afternoon I was
selected to field questions from the whole school. They were so
enamoured with the flashiness of capitalism and disillusioned with
socialism that they took no notice of their teachers. Only when I
spoke did they understand things like homelessness and unemployment
and other ills of capitalism which I had faced in my life. The head
teacher took me to one side and explained the failure of omitting a
Marxist approach in Soviet education after the war.
Cuba on the other hand is completely different. Cuba's population is
vibrant and alive with a deep and wide knowledge of the world and its
history and politics. Cuba's education remains revolutionary. This is
noted in Fidel Castro's famous 4 and 5 hour speeches, along with
books and pamphlets, all of which is an education in itself in every
word. This makes the Cuban people the most educated and well informed
in the world; exporting thousands of teachers, educationalists,
doctors, economists and agricultural and technical specialists to
many Third World countries.
Generations of Cubans can still compare the pre-revolutionary times
of one of the lowest life expectancies, health and education indexes
in Latin America; but currently has some of the highest education,
literacy, health and life expectancy indexes in the whole world –
higher than the US, Britain and the rest of Europe. Speaking to any
Cuban will show you that Cubans are exceptionally well educated even
by European standards, are more fully informed and more highly
knowledgeable about any socio-economic political issue anywhere in
the world, and they think globally. Read any English language Cuban
newspaper or journal or just read any of Fidel Castro's informative
and educative speeches and you will realise this.
I once looked inside the jambed half open door of a church in a small
town square in Cuba. The benches were stacked covered in dust to one
side and the rest of the church was stacked with sacks of
agricultural produce and animal feeds. Curious, I asked an old lady
sitting on the steps outside why the church wasn't used for religious
purposes. Thinking that at her age she might still be devoutly
religious, I was surprised and amused by her reply to the effect
that, before the revolution we used to use the church to pray for
bread, but now our revolution gives us bread, so we don't need a
church any more.
Another example I became aware of in the change in Cuban people's
attitude was when local Cuban teenagers came into my hotel lounge to
watch US television gangster movies.They were not in awe of any of
it, but were falling about laughing at "mas locos Americanos" – such
stupid Americans.
Our capitalist media and politicians love to remind us about the lack
of human rights in socialist countries, especially in the Soviet
Union, the GDR (East Germany), and the other European socialist
countries as well as Cuba, Vietnam and China.
The Soviet Constitution, and that of most other socialist countries,
guarantees the right to work, making necessary to back this up with
the right to a job, thus having no unemployment. An old socialist
saying is: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

Which Socio-Economic System Can Be Sustained?
There are only two socio-economic systems possible – capitalist, or
socialist (or communist. The distinction between socialist and
communist is not that essential to understand but is discussed
above).
The purpose of the capitalist socio-economic system is private
ownership of the means of production and therefore the very means of
subsistence solely for the making of private profit and nothing else.
The purpose of a socialist system is the satisfaction of human needs
by social or public ownership of production.
Production of commodities for the satisfaction of human needs
requires only two things. These two things have existed in the world
in abundance since time immemorial. These two things needed for
commodity production are raw materials and human labour. In a
socialist sense, all this – the land, raw materials, the means of
production, human labour, its products and profits. No other thing is
needed. No other thing was present when the world began. Neither
capital nor private profit nor a separate class of capitalists is
necessary in order to produce commodities.
Capitalist production – production for private profit, however, also
requires two things, two socio-economic classes of people: human
labour as wage labour, and capitalists who own everything as private
capital, product and profit. It continues as a repetitive cycle, each
cycle of profit becoming uncreased capital to make further private
profit in a continuing cycle.
In a socialist sense, capital – the whole means of production – land,
raw materials and human labour – is owned by the whole population.
Socially produced and owned profit is re-invested as socially owned
capital in a continuous socially managed cycle.
In a real democracy under socialism, since the whole population own
the means of production and the whole productive process, they also
naturally own the products thus produced, and the profits made. Since
these profits are not privately owned; they are at the disposal of
the whole polulation. They can decide whether to reinvest them in the
productive process; either as productive capital goods – raw material
extraction, primary production, such as steel, to make machinery; or
consumer capital to produce consumer goods – fridges, washing
machines, microwaves, hi-fis, electric toothbrushes, mobile phones
and MP3 players.
A lot of anti-communist propaganda, particularly in Soviet times, was
made of the fact that these economies are planned for the benefit of
the majority instead of the practice of consumer production of
luxuries for a rich minority, whose interests and demands thus delay
expanding primary production, say, of steel, instead of planning it
so that the majority could have what are nowadays regarded as
civilised items like fridges and washing machines. Propaganda that
Soviet homes even in some areas of Moscow had no washing machines,
omitted the fact that the system at the time was that your laundry
was picked up, laundered in a plant whose heat was provided from the
subsidiary heat from local power production, which also heats local
homes, and your laundry was delivered separated, pressed and folded –
all for a very low cost.
A socialist planned economy is inherently stable, with inflation,
currency and price fluctuations non-existent. The Soviet ruble always
had the same value. It only varied against western currency because
because the western currency fluctuated. So stable were prices that
every article bought, whether it was a television or a toothbrush,
had its price stamped or moulded into it at manufacture. There was
only one price change, of sugar in the 1960s, when it went down.
Soviet people, through their grass roots upwards democratic
processes, made these choices of priorities of economic policy; not a
minority of economically and therefore politically powerful
capitalists for their own private ends.

Capitalism's Ever Illusive Future
A country's economic system is the basis of its social system.
If we speak of a fair and equal society, what we are in effect asking
for cannot by its very nature be a world of capitalist socio-economic
relations, but socialist ones. Not the false and
misleading "socialism" of capitalist parties like the British Labour
Party or other European "social democratic" reformist parties, whose
impossible aim is merely to reform capitalism for the benefit of
society as a whole – capitalism with a friendly face.
With our limitless ability and means, should it not be natural to
assume, and be practically assured, that we can produce an
increasingly bright future for ourselves as part of mankind? Is that
not what human progress is all about? Isn't that what makes us
advanced from our animal ancestors in that we have evolved with a
frontal lobe that enables us to think, plan, invent, work out simple
problems like how to get termites out from their holes with a stick,
or crush a nut with a stone, make medicines and send a man into
space?
Yet we have this ridiculous state of affairs where we have thousands
of homeless people, vacant buildings and vacant building land,
unemployed building workers, and thousands of tons of building
materials destroyed because there is no demand for it. Why cannot the
unemployed building workers build houses for the homeless people on
the vacant building land with the unsellable building materials?
Because the capitalists who own and control the land and means of
production and property developers cannot make a profit out of it.
Under a proper socialist socio-economc system there would not be this
problem. The building would go ahead because the land and means of
production is not privately owned but publicly owned and therefore
production goes ahead for peoples' needs and not the need for private
profits of relatively few capitalists and their shareholders.
Under capitalism, nothing will be done for the majority except for
the private profits of a minority. If no private profit for the
capital invested by its owners or shareholders can be made, it will
not be done. The hungry will go unfed, the homeless will sleep in
cardboard boxes on the street, the ill will become worse and die, all
of that will happen unless private profit can be made out of it.
"No longer could I resist the conclusion that capitalism was doomed.
No longer must the livelihood of the community rest in irresponsible
hands; blast furnaces remaining cold, mines undug and houses unbuilt,
unless somebody's private profit set forward the lighting, the
digging and the building. Shivering miners could not dig the coal
they needed, naked men could not weave their shirts and coats, nor
could the man who lived seven in a single room enter a brickyard and
build himself a house; though he kicked his heels for a dozen years
in idleness, he must remain in misery if no one could make a profit
from his labour. The public that needed these things and could
produce them had no access to the land and machinery of production.
Private profit took precedence of human life. Christian morality, if
it was to be true to its mission, must find these things intolerable
and demand reform."
(Dr. Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury 1931-1963.)
"The social system in which a man, willing to work, is compelled to
starve, is a blasphemy, an anarchy, and no system."
(Irish revolutionary writer Thomas Devin Reilly.)
We hypocritically scream about "human rights" in socialist countries
but it is our own imperialist way of life which murders thousands
every day in the capitalist world.
In Vietnam, children's flesh is turned into flame in order that we
might have cheap tin; and hospitals, schools, nursery schools,
kindergartens, polyclinics, pioneer camps and miners' clubs are all
blown away in order that we might have cheap tungsten. Chile is
drenched in blood in order that ITT can have cheap copper for the US
military-industrial complex and the we can have cheap aluminium
windows, coke cans, cooking foil, electric carving knives. Central
America is raped in order that we can have cheap bananas, sugar,
coffee and tobacco. Thai and Filipino children go without education
and medicines or starve so that we can have cheap rice, cocoa,
rubber, sugar and palm oil. Black people in Apartheid South Africa
were oppressed and murdered in order that we could have cheap
uranium, diamonds, gold, copper, phosphates and other minerals.
It is time to know the connection between our way of life and
poverty, debt and wars. Everything we do under our economic system
based on production for profit rather than production for human needs
is somehow connected with a hungry child or a war somewhere in the
world.
We have benefited from the economic plunder of these peoples for
centuries and are the direct cause of their impoverishment,
starvation, disease, illiteracy and lack of development today. These
problems are the direct result of Britain's swanning around the
globe, bible in one hand and musket in the other, plonking the Union
Jack into the ground saying to the natives "you like plenty beads?
Great white King like plenty phosphates – here, sign this!"
We all kill the hungry child, not with guns and napalm, but with our
pounds and dollars in the supermarket, the bank and the building
society. When we open a tin of beans we open the stomach of an
already hungry child and remove the contents.
Economic warfare is what you and I conduct every day, when we buy a
banana or a tin of fruit; when we pay a penny to the poor peasant who
produced it, and the rest to the shareholders of the transnational
company and its marketing, distributing and retailing subsidiaries of
the product. This is called trade – free trade. Unequal trade.

Expose the Myths
Why do the richest people on earth use their most advanced billion
dollar science and technology to destroy the poorest and most
backward peoples of the world who refuse to accept US plans for their
happiness? Why are some of the world's poorest and most friendly and
gentle people also the world's most bombed people?
Democracy must involve thinking, learning, intellectual and academic
honesty and political responsibility. Merely voting for a government
is not democracy; it is just accepting the benefits of an imperialist
foreign policy while abrogating ourselves from any responsibility for
its consequences. We cannot absolve ourselves from responsibility or
rationalise any guilt by saying "It's not my fault, I'm not a
capitalist, what can I do about it?" We must learn and understand our
world – its socio-economic relationships.
"Famine and hunger are not inevitable, but are caused by identifiable
forces within the province of rational human control. I have tried to
identify some of the forces. You are part of humanity; you can be
part of that control."
(Susan George "How the Other Half Die.")
"The question to be asked is not what we should give to the poor but
when will we stop taking from the poor."
(Jim Wallace, Sojourners, USA.)
We all kill the hungry child; not necessarily with guns and napalm,
but with pounds and dollars in the supermarket. When we open a tin of
fruit we open the stomach of an already hungry child and remove the
contents. No. We cannot sit there enjoying the fruits of imperialism
saying "It's not my fault." We all say we want peace and fairness in
the world yet continue to live under an economic system that makes
wars and poverty a necessity if that system is to survive.
One of the biggest myths is that of aid to poor countries. But for
every G8/Live8 pound of this "aid" given so generously by British
pensioners and workers, 5 or 6 times as much comes back as profits
from those same poor countries.
When the capitalists talk of peace they mean only the continuation of
a peace that will never be, and never has been; a "peace" which
belongs in the museum of man's social and economic history –
the "peaceful" exploitation of man by man; the "peaceful" economic
plunder of nation by nation.

The Simple Thing So Hard To Achieve

"It's sensible.
Anyone can understand it.
It's easy.
You're not an exploiter – so you can grasp it.
It's a good thing for you – find out more about it.
The stupid call it stupid. The squalid call it squalid.
It is against squalor and against stupidity.
The exploiters call it a crime.
But we know it is the end of crime.
It's not madness but the end of madness.
It's not the riddle but the solution.
It is the simple thing so hard to achieve."
(In Praise of Communism. Berthold Brecht.)
"Above all, always be capable of feeling deeply any injustice against
anyone, anywhere in the world."
(Ernesto "Che" Guevara, in a letter to his children, a few months
before he was killed, 1965.)
"I am not a labour leader. I don't want you to follow me or anyone
else. If you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of the
capitalist wilderness you will stay right where you are. I would not
lead you into this promised land if I could, because if I could lead
you in, someone else could lead you out… You have got to unite in the
same labour union and in the same political party and strike and vote
together, and the hour you do that, the world is yours."
(US socialist leader Eugene Debs.)


From Brian Mitchell. Evolution.

Postscript:
British school and college history syllabus teaching and books do not
contain this sort of information.
All the material and information I have presented here is readily
available to historians, writers, journalists, teachers, educators
and syllabus publishers. Although I have spent many hundreds of hours
gathering it all together, I did not have to look very far to find
any of it.
Most people think British education is among the best in the world.
It isn't. It never has been. From before and right through the
industrial revolution, the British ruling class has always feared an
educated working class. When it was proposed to build free libraries
for working people a century ago, Lord Salisbury said: "Libraries!
They don't want libraries; give them a circus."
Now we have an education circus.
"The object of education is to prepare the young to educate
themselves throughout their lives… It sometimes seems as though we
were trying to combine the ideal of no schools at all with the
democratic ideal of schools for everybody by having schools without
education."
(Robert Maynard Hutchins.)
Could that be for a reason?:
  "There may be social unrest, but we can cope… but if we have a
highly educated and idle population we may possibly anticipate more
serious social conflict. People must be educated to know their place."
(Secret report of British Department of Education on rationalising
school curricula, 1984.)
It means that as a teacher you can get away with teaching about the
Nazis or Apartheid on a superficial level, because these historical
eras are too well known. But if you ventured seriously and treated
them with any depth, revealing the whole story, including British
complicity and support for Nazism and Apartheid, and seriously
investigated most other such events in history, you soon learned that
you would be progressively marginalized, criticised, then ostracised,
left out of career improvements or promotion, and get a sense of the
unspoken threat of not being able to pay the mortgage and bills
supporting a teacher's lifestyle for very long.
When as a trainee history lecturer, it was suggested I take the class
on a trip to the Tower of London and then set them an essay on what
life was like for a soldier in King Charles' Army centuries ago. Very
useful knowledge that! A sociology of the past perhaps? But certainly
not history in its most important sense; unless history is to mean
simply anything old or `interesting' that you might do in evening
classes, like antiques, flower arranging or basket weaving. When
instead, in my teaching practice in a Further Education college in
Slough, I taught real history – learning from the past in order to
change the future – the collective life-experience of humanity, I was
got rid of. The head of the history department complained that the
students had remarked that I made them think; which the head of
history had probably never done in a lifetime of teaching. I ended up
washing and cleaning and emptying surgical and clinical waste in a
local hospital, which could have bored me to death! And later the
only employment that would take me was serving customers in a large
local DIY store.
Unless teachers learn to be brave and intellectually honest
(difficult when they have a mortgage and bills to pay), future
historical, social and economic education and popular `knowledge'
will also not refer to the US or British history and capitalism's
continuing global plunder, exploitation, domination and control, wars
of aggrandisement and acquisition, causing the deaths and devastation
of the homes and lands of millions of people – the 40, or is it now
50 thousand children under the age of two who will die tonight
through simple lack of food, clean water, health and education –
things that we take from them every day without even thinking about
it – the untold millions of unnecessary deaths among the overwhelming
majority of humanity on this incredibly rich and abundant and
ultimately sustainable earth – a world which we, the 15 percent rich,
have taken from humanity and still own and control. The only viable
solution to which is socialism spreading across the world.

References.
References from this edited material from the original have been
omitted for considerations of space, relevance and context. They are
available in full in the original manuscript.
Copyright.
I hold no copyright on any material other than that of trust.
I am happy for this article to be reproduced and re-distributed in
full provided that authorship is acknowledged, and authorship of each
individual quotes cited is stated in full, and that the work is used
for the purpose for which it is obviously intended – to inform and
educate those interested in humanity in this world, economics,
history, sociology, philosophy, peace, poverty, imperialism, global
trade and the world debt crisis; in other words, most of humanity in
this incredibly rich and abundant world.
The material for this article is taken from three of the author's
books: "1917 And All That: The Untaught History Syllabus. In their
Own Words – A Political History Of The Cold War 1917-1983." which has
also been partly serialised in British and foreign journals, and
which arose out of an unpublished (and unfinished) Ph.D. thesis;
and "A Radical Book Of Enlightenment For The Common Man." which is a
compilation of over 1,700 radical political quotes in subject and
historical categories; and "Understanding The Hidden Nature Of
Capitalism. – Or Marx For Beginners." including Marx's full exposure
of the capitalist economic system. A fourth, non political, book is a
comprehensive computer guide for teachers, journalists, writers and
authors.
Contact.
Questions of clarification; responses and criticisms welcomed.
Reply to my personal e-mail at   evolution2005(at)f2s.com   if you
prefer.
My replies to criticisms will be posted.
The author is available for talks and discussions locally (London,
East Berkshire and the home counties).

The fast paced advancements in education and technology require us to
keep up to date in the chosen field. We also need to improve our skill
sets or study a new discipline to meet ever growing competition in the
job market. Online degrees offer the best solution to all of us as we
don't have to attend regular classes leaving our present commitments.

Visit the website for some valuable tips on how to get online degrees
from world's renowned universities to improve our academics and
further our career interests: http://onlinedegrees.onlineseeker.info

The More You Learn The More You Earn
* Don't quit your job
* Obtain your degree online on your schedule
* Earn more money

Average Salary Pattern:
1280
High School Diploma - $34k
Associate Degree - $46k
Bachelor's Degree - $65k
Master's Degree - $83k
PG Degrees - $103k

Visit the website for some valuable tips on how to get online degrees:
http://onlinedegrees.onlineseeker.info

Who's In Control?
A Reminder - In Their Own Words.


"The US is leader of the free world, and under this administration is beginning
to act like it. If the Europeans don't like it, that's too bad. It's too late to
do anything about it now."

(US Vice President George Bush, Chicago, Aug 16 1982.)



US imperialism has been advancing throughout the world steadily since it became
industrialised more than a century ago. Like the British empire and other
empires before it, including pretenders to empires such as the German Nazis, it
is guided by immutable principles irrefutable and laws inherent and intrinsic in
its national and global socio-economic relationships.

Except for the primitive communism necessarily practiced by tribes or societies
for their own needs, and when it became possible to produce an economic surplus
over requirements, societies have always consisted of socio-economic classes,
where one class economically exploits and lives off the other - the one owning
the means of production of wealth, the other, owning no means of production
themselves and therefore entirely dependent on making or producing wealth for
the owners of the means of production for a tiny share of the product in order
to live. Each era had its particular set of classes with opposing socio-economic
relations - owner and slave, patrician and plebeian, feudal landowner and serf,
guildmaster and journeyman, and capitalist or bourgeoisie (French: capital
owning class) and proletarian (working class by hand or brain). In short:
exploiter and exploited.

Capitalism's inherent unsustainability is that it cannot remain confined in one
country if it is not to stagnate and collapse. It must continually expand into
ever increasing sources of cheap raw materials, cheap labour, and markets for
the goods and profit as excess capital it produces.

Since capitalism is therefore inherently ultimately unsustainable, it can only
survive by imperialism and war.

The history of this is evident and exemplified here - in their own words:

"Got Mit Uns."

(God is with us. Inscribed on Nazi Wehrmacht belts.)

"God... has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in
the regeneration of the world."

(US Senator Albert Beveridge, 1900.)

"To see freedom sent around the world, this is our mission... It was God's
charge to us."

(US Senator Barry Goldwater.)

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this,
the last best hope for man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last
step into a thousand years of darkness."

(Ronald Reagan, 1964.)

"I have long believed that there is a divine plan which has entrusted this land
to a people with a special destiny."

(US President Ronald Reagan, 1981.)

"I have read the Book of Revelations and yes, I believe the world is going to
end."

(Caspar Weinberger.)

"You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets in the Old Testament and the
signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if - if we're the
generation that's going to see that one come about."

(US President Ronald Reagan, Oct 18 1983.)

"If it takes a bloodbath... let's get it over with."

(Ronald Reagan, Governor of California.)

"What are they going to say about us? What are those people 100 years from now
going to think? They will know whether we used those weapons... Well; what they
will say about us a hundred years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous
with destiny. Will we do the things that we know must be done and know that one
day down in history, a hundred years or perhaps before someone will say 'thank
God for those people back in the 1980s for preserving our freedom, for saving
for us this blessed planet called Earth'."

(Ronald Reagan, in his 1984 television election debate.)

"Retribution will be ours unless we put the world in order."

(US President Ronald Reagan.)

  "In an ideal world we'd have God for President. Nothing is less appropriate for
this nation. .so He will speak to His supporters in the polling booths and
advise them of His Chosen Man. .candidate Reagan. believes what God tells us.
He's for Adam and Eve and he's against what they call the Theory of Evolution.
he's for America being number one again, having the strongest military since
Creation. Capitalism is enshrined in the Book of Proverbs. Material wealth is
God's way of blessing people who put Him first."

(US Moral Majority Born Again Christian leader Reverend Jerry Falwell.)

It might be said that these are the words of crackpots and bigots. Very well,
let's see what respected upstanding "responsible" leaders have to say:

"Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and can be
ours. And we shall get it, as our Mother England has told us how... We will
cover the ocean with our merchant marine. We will build a navy to the measure of
our greatness... Our institutes will follow our trade. American law, American
order, American civilisation, and the American flag."

(US Senator Albert Beveridge, 1898.)

"...to set forth the political, military, territorial and economic requirements
of the United States in its potential leadership of the non-German world area,
including the United Kingdom itself as well as the Western hemisphere and the
Far East. The first and foremost requirement of the United States in a world in
which it proposes to hold unquestionable power. Co-ordination and co-operation
of the United States with other countries to secure the limitation of any
exercise of sovereignty by foreign nations that constitutes a threat to the
minimum world area essential for the security and economic prosperity of the
United States."

(Economic and Financial Group of the US Council of Foreign Relations. 1940.)

"The measure of our victory will be the measure of our domination after
victory."

(US Council of Foreign Relations Director Isaiah Bowman, Dec 15 1941.)

". England. will be so impoverished economically and crippled in prestige that
it is improbable that she will be able to resume or maintain the dominant
position in world affairs that she has occupied for so long. At best, England
will become a junior partner in a new Anglo-Saxon imperialism in which the
economic resources and the military and naval strength of the US will be the
centre of gravity. The sceptre passes to the US."

(Annual Convention of the Investment Bankers' Association of America, Dec 10
1940.)

"...the British Empire as it existed in the past will never re-appear and that
the United States may have to take its place. ...must cultivate a mental view
toward world settlement after this war which will enable us to impose our own
terms, amounting to perhaps a Pax-Americana."

(US Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy, May 6 1942.)

"My dear Americans, we may be short of dollars, but we are not short of will...
We won't let you down. . Standards of life may go back. We may have to say to
our miners and to our steel workers: "We can't give you all we hoped for. We
can't give you the houses we want you to live in. We can't give you the
amenities we desire to give you." But we won't fail."

(British Labour Foreign Secretary Bevin to the American Legion, Savoy Hotel,
London, Sept 10 1947.)

"If the threatened war comes, one of the leading America generals said not long
ago that while London and most of Britain would be quickly destroyed, Britain
would remain useful as an aircraft carrier for American bombers; they would
still be able to use the excellent aerodromes built by Americans in East
Anglia."

(New Statesman and Nation March 27 1948 )

"Today Americans know that they are the dominant Power in the world; they take
pride in the position, they accept the responsibility of it, and they expect the
rest of us to respect their leadership."

(Tory Lord Woolton, Sunday Times, July 16 1950.)

"Mr. Bevin went to New York, determined to prevent the precipitate rearmament of
Germany... He failed... Faced with an American ultimatum... he toed the line."

(New Statesman and Nation, Dec 2 1950.)

"We British must recognise that American policy must prevail, if there is an
honest difference of opinion between us as to what to do next in the world
struggle. He who pays the piper calls the tune."

(Labour MP Commander King-Hall, National Newsletter, June 28 1951.)

"Consultation would be a matter of a telephone call as United States planes with
atom bombs took off for targets."

(United States News and World Report, Dec 21 1951.)

"The United States will in fact have no other choice but to establish a world
order it is able to live with, a world where there is relatively free access to
the world's resources."

(US Wall Street Journal, Nov 26 1979.)

"We must be prepared for waging a conventional war that may extend to many parts
of the globe. Many of the resources that we need for energy and many essential
strategic minerals are found thousands of miles from our shores... If we are to
safeguard our access, and the access of the free world, to these resources, we
must increase our military and naval strength."

(US Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger, April 28 1981.)

"As the largest producer, the largest source of capital, and the biggest
contributor to the global mechanism, we must set the pace and assume the
responsibility of the majority stockholder in this corporation known as the
world... Nor is this for a given term of office. This is a permanent
obligation."

(Leo D. Welch, Secretary-Treasurer of US Standard Oil Company, 1946.)

"It will become increasingly difficult in the near future to protect US overseas
interests with conventional weapons... I have in mind situations far from our
shores,... where we would have difficulty, from a logistics point of view, at
least, in reaching the areas in which we have considerable US interests. Such
situations could well involve a non nuclear power... We just would not have the
capability, quantitatively and qualitatively, to take care of the situation with
conventional force...

.the need for the United States to look more and more overseas for the resources
to provide economic strength... We will be looking increasingly towards Africa
and the Middle East, as well as South America, for the materials required by our
industrial economy... We will require free access and intercourse with many far
distant nations of the world in order to remain a leading export - import
nation.

We may have confrontations with non-nuclear states such as Cuba. We may have
confrontations with nuclear or non-nuclear nations whose geographical location
is such that we have no adequate means of protecting our interests with
conventional weapons... The use of nuclear weapons with varying capabilities
might be the only effective method of accomplishing our objectives, protecting
our interests, and minimising the overall death and destruction that might
accrue."

(Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller, US Navy, House of Representatives, Washington
1976.)

"Commercial and industrial predominance forces a nation to seek markets, and
where possible to control them to its own advantage by prepondering force... An
inevitable link in a chain of logical sequences: industry, markets, control,
navy bases."

(US naval historian Alfred Mahan.)

"We must maintain armed forces all over the world. The United States may have to
occupy more countries before the cold war is ended."

(US Vice President Barkley, New Orleans, May 22 1950.)

"The United States, as an island nation heavily dependent on overseas raw
materials, must continue its forward deployment of forces in Asia and the
Pacific region. There is no cheaper way to American security."

(US Defence Secretary Frank Carlucci.)

"To use our strategic air power successfully we must have bases so located
around the world that we can reach any target we may be called upon to hit."

(US Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee.)

"The West could, with relative impunity launch atomic attacks on the Soviet
Union from a perimeter of 360 degrees, manned by more than 250 allied bases."

(General Norstad, US Supreme Commander of NATO, in The Times June 14 1957,)

  "Both our interests and our ideals propel us westward across the Pacific."

(US President Nixon.)

"Now the Pacific has become an Anglo-Saxon lake, and our line of defence runs
through the chain of islands fringing the coast of Asia."

(US General MacArthur, Daily Mail March 2 1949.)

"Geographically, our territory extends to the Aleutians, Hawaii and Guam in the
middle of the Pacific Ocean... We are a global power with global tasks. We have
to be prepared to fulfil the tasks facing us in Asia in the same ways as we are
prepared to fulfil them elsewhere."

(Former US Defence Secretary Brown.)

"US global power projection rests upon a co-operative Caribbean and a supportive
South America. The exclusion of Old World maritime powers from Cuba, the
Caribbean and Latin America has helped the United States generate sufficient
surplus power for balancing activities on European, Asian and African
continents...

Any United States power base, be it in Latin America, Western Europe or the
Western Pacific, cannot be allowed to crumble if the United States is to retain
adequate extra energy to be able to play a balancing role elsewhere in the
world. For a balancing state like the United States, there is no possibility of
flexible global action if its power is immobilised or checked in any one area."

(From the Santa Fe Document, Inter-American Security Inc. Washington, 1980.)

"We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order..."

(Washington Post, May 1991.)

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will
recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great
idea after all."

(US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot, Time, July 20, l992.)

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this
mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation
states of the world."

(Professor Arnold Toynbee, Institute for the Study of International Affairs,
Copenhagen, June l931.)

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or
consent."

(Council on Foreign Relations member James Warburg, Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, February 17, l950.)

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less
than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to
dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a
whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central
banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in
frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank
for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and
controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private
corporations. .capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic
control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the
indirect injury of all other economic groups."

(US Professor Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University, 1966.)

"The New World Order will have to be built... in the end run around national
sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece."

(US Council on Foreign Relations, April l974.)

"Somebody has to take governments' place, and business seems to me to be a
logical entity to do it."

(David Rockefeller, Newsweek International, Feb 1 1999.)

". our policy must be both "global", ie: embrace every part of the world, and
also "total", ie: include political, psychological, economic, military and
special measures integrated into one whole.

In Europe we started with economic aid. It is quite possible that without the
Marshall Plan we would have found it more difficult to form NATO. .a
co-ordinated foreign policy using every kind of pressure, resulted in the
creation of what we hoped was a solid military union.

In Asia. the importance of preliminary economic preparations for the alliances
we wished to make. .military measures will often be found unobjectionable if the
way to them is paved with economic aid...

By the use of economic aid we succeeded in getting access to Iranian oil and we
are now well established in the economy of that country. The strengthening of
our economic position in Iran has enabled us to acquire control over her foreign
policy and in particular to make her join the Baghdad Pact. At the present time
the Shah would not dare even to make any changes in his cabinet without
consulting our Ambassador...

For us to have in Asia, Africa and other under-developed areas a political and
military influence as great or greater than we obtained through the Marshall
Plan in Europe. It is necessary for us to act carefully and patiently, and in
the early stages confine ourselves to securing very modest political concessions
in exchange for our economic aid (in some exceptional cases even without any
concessions in return). The way will then be open to us, but at a later stage,
to step up both our political price and our military demands...

.we should pick out the countries with anti-communist governments friendly to
us, which are already bound to the US through stable long-term military
agreements. In this case governmental subsidies and credits may take the form
mainly of military appropriations. The hooked fish needs no bait... At the same
time economic support for those strata of the local business community which are
ready to co-operate with the US should be increased and the necessary conditions
would be created for businessmen of this type to be put in key economic
positions and accordingly for their political influence to be increased...

Such countries may be given direct economic aid as well but we must give them
only as much as is necessary in order to keep suitable governments concerned in
power and to check any hostile opposition elements."

.includes those countries which pursue or tend towards a neutralist policy. In
this case the main emphasis in economic assistance as regards government
subsidies and credits should be on creating conditions in which eventually the
economic relations established by us would work for and make it natural for
these countries to join military pacts and alliances inspired by us. The essence
of this policy should be that the development of our economic relations with
these countries would ultimately allow us to take over key positions in the
native economy... By this means we can hope to divert the foreign policy of
these countries in a more desirable direction.

.support should be given in particular cases and within due limit, to native
businessmen who are struggling against their colonial status. if we do not
support them we lose all hope of exercising a restraining influence on them
until it is too late. If this happens the desire for independence may result in
a nationalism so strong as to escape not only from the control of the old
colonial powers but also from our own control.

Extensive economic aid to all three groups of countries should always be
presented as an expression of a sincere and disinterested desire on the part of
the US to help and co-operate with them."

(Millionaire Nelson Rockefeller, US Council on Foreign Relations, to President
Eisenhower, January 1956.)

"We will never be able to put into effect our joint plans in this vital area
unless quite exceptional efforts are made to check European tendencies towards
neutralism, pacifism and unilateralism. If argument, persuasion and compacting
the media fail, we are left with no alternative to jolt the faint-hearted in
Europe through the creation of situations, country by country, as deemed
necessary, to convince them where their interests lie. This would call for
appropriate action of a sensitive nature which we have frequently discussed..."

(US NATO Supreme Commander Alexander Haig, in a letter to Secretary General of
NATO - ex Nazi Joseph Lunz, June 1979.)

"Intervention is justified wherever it becomes necessary to guarantee the United
States' capital and markets."

(US President Taft, 1912.)

"We do control the destinies of Central America... Until now Central America has
always understood that governments which we recognise and support stay in power,
while those we do not recognise and support fail."

(US Under Secretary of State Robert Olds, 1927.)

"The United States could never permit another Nicaragua, even if preventing it
meant employing the most reprehensible means."

(Zbigniew Brzezinski, June 1980.)

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the
irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the
Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

(Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, about Chile prior to the CIA overthrow of
the democratically elected government of socialist President Salvadore Allende
in 1973. )

"I am against any interference in the internal affairs of the Latin American
countries. But under certain conditions I consider exceptions possible."

(Henry Kissinger.)

"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active service as a member of our
country's most agile military force - the Marine corps... And during that time I
spent most of my time being a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall
Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism... Thus I
helped make Mexico, and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in
1914. I helped to make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the national city bank
boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is
long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown
Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the
American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went its way unmolested. I helped make Honduras right for American
fruit companies in 1903."

(Testimony of US Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, McCormack Dickstein
Committee. 1935.)

QUESTION:

"...I saw the helicopters... Americans moving towards our village... huge,
towering men... we sat there huddled together... American appeared at the
entrance... fired point blank at grandmother Toan. She sank slowly to the
floor... grenade... I crawled out... bodies of my sister, little brother, uncle
Duc, cousin Thu and her baby... Americans returned... mutilated bodies with
bayonets... baby in convulsions... I hid... heard uncle Huong's voice... I asked
him "is anyone else alive?" "No little one, everyone's killed." Please, tell me
why were they all killed?"

(Twelve year old Vo Thi Lien, survivor of the US massacre of the inhabitants of
the village of Son My, Vietnam (My Lai on US military maps) March 16 1969.)

ANSWER:

"Let us suppose we lose Indochina. The tin and tungsten that we so greatly value
from that area would cease coming. We are voting for the cheapest way that we
can to prevent the occurence of something that would be of a most terrible
significance to the United States of America, our security, our power and
ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indochinese
territory and from Southeast Asia."

(US President Eisenhower, justifying US aid to France's war against Vietnam, Aug
4 1953; which later included the offer of the use of nuclear weapons during the
seige of Dien Bien Phu.)

"Geographically, Vietnam stands at the hub of a vast area of the world -
Southeast Asia - an area with a vast population of 249 million persons... He who
holds or has influence in Vietnam can affect the future of the Philippines and
Formosa [now Taiwan B.M.] to the East, Thailand and Burma with their huge rice
surpluses to the West, and Malaysia and Indonesia with their rubber, ore and tin
to the South... Vietnam thus does not exist in a geographical vacuum - from it
large store-houses of wealth and population can be influenced and undermined."

(Former US Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge, Cambridge,
Massachussets, in the Boston Sunday Globe, Feb 28 1965.)

"It is rich in many raw materials such as tin, oil, rubber and iron ore... This
area has great strategic value... It has major naval and air bases."

(US Secretary of State Dulles, March 29 1954.)

"One of the world's richest areas is open to the winner of Indo-China. That's
behind the growing US concern... tin, rubber, rice, key strategic raw materials
are what the war is really about. The US sees it as a place to hold - at any
cost."

(US News and World Report, April 4 1954.)

". strategic resources of Southeast Asia and their significance for the global
system that the US was then constructing, incorporating Western Europe and
Japan. It was feared that successful independent development under a radical
nationalist leadership in Vietnam might 'cause the rot to spread', gradually
eroding US dominance in the region and ultimately causing Japan, the largest
domino, to join in a closed system from which the US would be excluded. The idea
that US global planners had national imperialist motives is intolerable to the
doctrinal system, so this topic must be avoided in any history directed to a
popular audience."

(Noam Chomsky, "The Vietnam War In The Age Of Orwell.")

"Agreement On Ending the War and Restoring Peace In Vietnam. January 27 1973.
(The Paris Agreement.)

Article 21.- The United States anticipates that this Agreement will usher in an
era of reconciliation with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam as with all the
peoples of Indochina. In persuance of its traditional policy, the United States
will contribute to healing the wounds of war and to postwar reconstruction of
the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and throughout Indochina.

"1. The Government of the USA agrees to contribute to post-war reconstruction in
Vietnam without any political conditions.

2. The US contribution will fall in the range of 3-25 billion dollars of grant
aid over 5 years."

Signed: For the Government of the United States.

         William P. Rodgers.

         Secretary of State."

(Agreement on ending the Vietnam war, 1973.)

Not one dollar has been paid.

"Well folks, that just about wraps up Vietnam. So let's all have a party and get
outta here."

(Admiral of the US command fleet, USS Blue Ridge, departing Vietnam for the last
time, May 1 1975.)

Not about oil? They must be joking!

"Our aim is not simply to appropriate oil in one way or another (say in easily
accessible Nigeria or Venezuela) but to crush OPEC. Therefore we have to use
direct force in order to get hold of large and concentrated oil deposits which
can be opened up rapidly so as to put an end to the artificial oil shortage and
thus to lower the price... Since this is the ultimate and there is only one
target possible: Saudi Arabia... Fortunately, these are not only rich oilfields
but they are also concentrated in a very small area, a fraction of the Saudi
Arabian territory... While Vietnam was full of trees and brave people and our
national interest was almost invisible, what we have here is no trees, very few
people and a clear objective."

(Advisor to the US Defence Department Professor Miles Ignotas, March 1975.)

"The economic health and well-being of the United States, Western Europe, Japan
depend upon continued access to the oil from the Persian area."

(President Carter, Department of State Bulletin, April 1978.)

"Western industrialised societies are largely dependent on the oil resources of
the Middle East region and a threat to access to that oil would constitute a
grave threat to the vital national interests. This must be dealt with; and that
does not exclude the use of force if necessary."

(US Secretary of State Alexander Haig, March 11 1981.)

"In the future, we are more likely to be involved in Iraq-type things,
Panama-type things, Grenada-type things. Our position should be the protection
of the oilfields. Now whether Kuwait gets put back, that's subsidiary stuff."

(Chairman of US Armed Services Committee Les Aspin, 1990.)

"They know we own their country [Iraq]. We own their airspace. We dictate the
way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a
good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need."

(US Brigadier General William Looney, Washington Post, August 30 1999.)

"US aid is to "improve U.S.-Kazakh military cooperation while establishing a
U.S.-interoperable base along the oil-rich Caspian."

(U.S. State Department Report, 2002.)

"In oil's name, the United States is immersed in a new kind of colonialism, for
the resources that lie under foreign feet. They couldn't care less about the
people. Therein lies an even greater tragedy."

(U.S. Dept. of State, Congressional Budget Justifications: Foreign Operations,
Fiscal Year 2003.)

And finally, some words of wisdom:

"The foreign policy that monopolistic capital imposes is a ruinous one for the
people of the United States. The United States had some thirty billion dollars
in gold in its reserves at the end of the Second World War; in twenty years it
had used up more than half of these reserves. What has it been used for? With
what benefit to the people of the United States? Does the United States perhaps
have more friends now than before?

. But what kind of liberty is it that they are defending, that nobody is
grateful to them, that nobody appreciates this alleged defence of their
liberties? .What country has prospered and has achieved peace and political
stability under that protection from the United States? What solutions has it
found for the great problems of the world? The United States has spent fabulous
resources pursuing that policy; it will be able to spend less and less, because
its gold reserves are being exhausted.

. the United States has been carrying out a repressive and reactionary policy in
the international field, without having solved the problems of a single
underdeveloped country..."

(Fidel Castro, quoted by US journalist Lee Lockwood, May 1965.)



Compiled by Brian Mitchell. EVOLUTION.



This collection of quotations has been gathered from the following books by the
same author:



1917 AND ALL THAT

The Untaught History Syllabus

In Their Own Words - A Political History Of The Cold War 1917-1983.

Brian Mitchell



MY FELLOW DISBELIEVERS

The Untaught Book Of Enlightenment For The Common Man

In Their Own Words

Compiled by Brian Mitchell.

Mental Health warning:

This book is dangerous to those with a British education.

It could change your mind (If you still have one.)



THE UNTAUGHT PHILOSOPHY SYLLABUS

Understanding The Hidden Nature Of Capitalism And How It Works

Or Marx For Beginners - Philosophy and Economics.

(Including Marx's essential exposé of the capitalist socio-economic system.)

Brian Mitchell



A fourth, non-political book:

THE WRITER'S, AUTHOR'S AND JOURNALIST'S COMPUTER GUIDE

A MORE OR LESS COMPLETE COMPUTER GUIDE FOR MORE OR LESS COMPLETE COMPUTER USERS

(Or Even Beginners)

WINDOWS AND WORD MORE FULLY EXPLAINED

(Updated for Windows 2000 and Word 2000.)

Written by a writer, with writers, authors and journalists in mind. And those
who work alone without an IT department.

A wealth of fully explained and easy to understand guidance, instruction, tips
and tricks and information of all sorts, including what to buy, how to set it
up, how to maintain it and how to fix it when it throws a tantrum.

Aims to give all-round competence and confidence to anybody who wants to use a
computer as a fully featured writing machine without feeling like a dummy or
idiot.

Brian Mitchell






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Andromeda has sent you a link to a blog:

Blogger feels a wider readership is deserved for The Voice of Reason
Blog. You are requested to have a look and obviously let others know if
you think it is good stuff. If you do not, then you have the option of
leaving your comment on the blog. Thank you for your attention!

Blog: The Voice of Reason
Post: A definition of Conservatism and Liberalism
Link:
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2007/09/definition-of-conservatism-and.\
html

--
Powered by Blogger
http://www.blogger.com/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There is actually no "user input" apart from voting YES or NO to a particular
proposition, eg should the UK withdraw from the EU? etc

Those who join are greeted and then invited to join the Debate Group if they
want to discuss whatever is on their minds.

The facility exists for members to vote the other way should they at any time
change their minds.

Members are notified as and when there are new polls.

It is a bit minimalist, I agree, but simplicity and clarity is the key!







   ----- Original Message -----
   From: ROY DAINE
   To: uksoapbox@...
   Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:33 PM
   Subject: Re: [UK SOAP BOX] Re: A new resource for the group


   Thanks Andromeda, for your email and your interest in myverdict.net.
   Early days yet, the site's existence is being spread by word of mouth but it
appears that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 7 visitors register. I have, in fact, just
received a very nice maily from a local councillor, who has registered.
   I visited 1party4all by the way, but I couldn't find any user input. The
debate pages seemed to be voting pages. Did I miss a link somewhere.
   Good lick with your site.
   Best Regards
   Roy Daine
   andromeda07734 <andromeda07734@...> wrote:
   Thanks for that.

   But has heard anyone visited

   http://www.1party4all.co.uk ?

   It somehow does not look as if this place is where people read and
   repond to posts!

   --- In uksoapbox@..., "roy670265" <rdaine@...> wrote:
   >
   > In an 'ideal' democracy, we the people, would be asked for our
   opinion
   > on every issue, from local level to international. If legislators
   knew
   > the majority opinion of their constituents, on every issue, in every
   > community, they could better represent them. They would be obliged to
   > represent them. They would not have to toe the party line, based on a
   > manifesto of three or four general issues.
   > A unique website, http://www.myverdict.net, now exists to canvas the
   > majority opinion on all issues, in every community.
   > Take a look, post your question, cast your vote, then come back here
   > and tell the world about it. See how many others you can convince.
   > You can affect policy, but only if the legislators know the majority
   > opinion.
   >

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





   __________ NOD32 2422 (20070726) Information __________

   This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
   http://www.eset.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Andromeda, for your email and your interest in myverdict.net.
   Early days yet, the site's existence is being spread by word of mouth but it
appears that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 7 visitors register. I have, in fact, just
received a very nice maily from a local councillor, who has registered.
   I visited 1party4all by the way, but I couldn't find any user input. The
debate pages seemed to be voting pages. Did I miss a link somewhere.
Good lick with your site.
   Best Regards
   Roy Daine
andromeda07734 <andromeda07734@...> wrote:
           Thanks for that.

But has heard anyone visited

http://www.1party4all.co.uk ?

It somehow does not look as if this place is where people read and
repond to posts!

--- In uksoapbox@..., "roy670265" <rdaine@...> wrote:
>
> In an 'ideal' democracy, we the people, would be asked for our
opinion
> on every issue, from local level to international. If legislators
knew
> the majority opinion of their constituents, on every issue, in every
> community, they could better represent them. They would be obliged to
> represent them. They would not have to toe the party line, based on a
> manifesto of three or four general issues.
> A unique website, http://www.myverdict.net, now exists to canvas the
> majority opinion on all issues, in every community.
> Take a look, post your question, cast your vote, then come back here
> and tell the world about it. See how many others you can convince.
> You can affect policy, but only if the legislators know the majority
> opinion.
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for that.

But has heard anyone visited

http://www.1party4all.co.uk ?

It somehow does not look as if this place is where people read and
repond to posts!






--- In uksoapbox@..., "roy670265" <rdaine@...> wrote:
>
> In an 'ideal' democracy, we the people, would be asked for our
opinion
> on every issue, from local level to international. If legislators
knew
> the majority opinion of their constituents, on every issue, in every
> community, they could better represent them. They would be obliged to
> represent them. They would not have to toe the party line, based on a
> manifesto of three or four general issues.
> A unique website, http://www.myverdict.net, now exists to canvas the
> majority opinion on all issues, in every community.
> Take a look, post your question, cast your vote, then come back here
> and tell the world about it. See how many others you can convince.
> You can affect policy, but only if the legislators know the majority
> opinion.
>

In an 'ideal' democracy, we the people, would be asked for our opinion
on every issue, from local level to international. If legislators knew
the majority opinion of their constituents, on every issue, in every
community, they could better represent them. They would be obliged to
represent them. They would not have to toe the party line, based on a
manifesto of three or four general issues.
A unique website, http://www.myverdict.net, now exists to canvas the
majority opinion on all issues, in every community.
Take a look, post your question, cast your vote, then come back here
and tell the world about it. See how many others you can convince.
You can affect policy, but only if the legislators know the majority
opinion.

In an 'ideal' democracy, we the people, would be asked for our opinion
on every issue, from local level to international. If legislators knew
the majority opinion of their constituents, on every issue, in every
community, they could better represent them. They would be obliged to
represent them. They would not have to toe the party line, based on a
manifesto of three or four general issues.
A unique website, http://www.myverdict.net, now exists to canvas the
majority opinion on all issues, in every community.
Take a look, post your question, cast your vote, then come back here
and tell the world about it. See how many others you can convince.
You can affect policy, but only if the legislators know the majority
opinion.

Visit

http://www.1party4all.co.uk

to vote on issues the government thinks you are too immature to decide
for yourself, eg the EU, immigration, death penalty, etc etc.

1917 AND ALL THAT: THE UNTAUGHT HISTORY SYLLABUS.
In Their Own Words: A Political History Of The Cold War 1917-1983.
By Brian Mitchell.

My apologies to those who have been following these excerpts from my book and
waiting for this last two chapters.

Delays are due to health problems, which will hopefully be now more under
control. Unless we need more money to bomb another country for its oil, of
course. Then I'll probably have to wait even longer for an appointment.

After all, each Cruise or Tomahawk missile being more or less the cost of a new
NHS hospital, built, equipped, staffed and maintained for a year. Whoops, there
goes another operating theatre.

But then we need the oil don't we? How else will we 4 wheel drive Jeep the kids
to the local grammar school - which of course is half way up Mount Killimanjaro?

Thank you all for your patience.

Brian Mitchell.



Chapters 49 - 50 of 50. .

Chapter 49

IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE AN ARMS RACE -
BUT ONLY ONE TO START AND LEAD ONE.
"I'm willing to be just as generous as we possibly can, so long as that's
consistent with maintaining clear supremacy."

(US Ambassador to United Nations Jean Kirkpatrick.)

The West has always led the arms race. And in the 1980s the West was still
planning to lead the arms race:

"Serious negotiations on arms control can only take place after we have
increased our forces... in ten years time."

(Reagan's chief negotiator in Geneva Paul Nitze, Los Angeles Times Sept 28
1981.)

For the third time in their brief history, the Soviet people can see the
capitalist world arming against them; this time with nuclear weapons.

Any scientific look at the history of arms development will show that British
and US 'defensive' nuclear weapons are always about attacking the Soviet Union
through the Soviet Union's continually improving defence systems.

Washington and Moscow did not suddenly decide to have an arms race; like two
athletes or football teams. The whole history of the arms race shows that it was
started by one, and the other was forced to follow:

    USA    USSR

First Atomic bomb:    USED: 1945   Tested: 1949

Formation of military blocs:    NATO: 1949   Warsaw Pact: 1955

First hydrogen bomb available:   1953   1954

Medium range missiles:   1953   1959

First Inter Continantal Ballistic Missiles available:   1955   1957

First nuclear armed submarines launched:   1956   1962

Submarine launched ballistic missiles:   1959   1968

Solid fuelled ICBMs:   1962   1969

MRVs (Multiple re-entry vehicles):   1964   1972

MIRVs (Independently targetable):   1970   1975

It is also common knowledge that the West was first with Cruise, Trident and
Pershing missiles, and Neutron bombs, and Manoeuverable Re-entry Vehicles
(MARVs). The West was also first with chemical, biological, and binary weapons.
The Soviets do not have any equivalent of some of these latest US weapons.

From 1945 to 1983, the US, Britain and France conducted a total of 896 nuclear
tests, of these 748 were by the US. The Soviet Union conducted a total of 492
over the same years.

The West has always led the arms race. And the US would not have hesitated to
use its nuclear superiority to blackmail the Soviet Union into refraining from
giving military assistance to any third world country that wanted to take the
socialist path or in some way become independent from US exploitation:

"In the early postwar years, we had a monopoly of nuclear weapons. And for a
decade after that - until the middle or late sixties - we had overwhelming
nuclear superiority... which determined the outcome of the Berlin airlift, the
Korean war, and the Cuban missile crisis... in the late '60s and early '70s, our
nuclear superiority was no longer so evident as it had been at the time of the
Cuban missile crisis; indeed superiority had given way to stalemate. The
deterioration of our nuclear advantage led to the erosion of our position (in
Vietnam) and profoundly affected the final stages of the conflict.

The mission of our nuclear forces. must also provide a nuclear guarantee for our
interests in many parts of the world, and make it possible to defend those
interests by diplomacy or by the use of theatre military forces whenever such
action becomes necessary. .we carry on the foreign policy of a nation with
global interests, and defend them if necessary by conventional means or theatre
forces."

(Eugene Rostow, former head of US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, in "The
Case Against SALT II." Commentary, Feb 1979.)

"By every significant measure of comparison, the United States has always held,
and continues to hold, a commanding lead in strategic power...

Both the nuclear and conventional balances of power in Europe have always
favoured NATO and continue to do so...

While the Soviet Union has done all it could do to match Western levels of
strength, it has failed to change the military balance...

It is the Soviets who always have to respond..."

(US military and defence expert Tom Gervasi.)

In other words: if we had nuclear superiority we would have used it in Vietnam.

But communists do not want war. They have no interest in war.

"Russia has not the slightest thing to gain by a war with the United States. I
believe Russia's policy is friendship with the United States. There is in Russia
a desperate and continuing concern for the lot of the common man and they want
to be friends with the United States."

(Eisenhower, Nov 15 1944. The Nashville Banner Nov 15 1944.)

Communists do not want arms races. They do not want to build missiles and
missile silos. They want to build houses, health centres, schools, sports
complexes, hydro-electric power stations, universities, industrial complexes,
hospitals, gas pipelines, steel plants, factories producing consumer goods,
railways, roads, ports, and new towns and cities. And they want to trade with
the capitalist world on an equal basis.

"What the Soviet Union proposes to the capitalist countries is competition in
raising the standard of living of the people and not in the arms race, in
building houses and schools and not military bases and rocket launching sites,
in expanding mutually advantageous trade and cultural exchanges and not the
"cold war","

("USSR Today and Tomorrow.")

It was not communists who attacked Vietnam and subjected the Vietnamese people
to over 30 years of war. It was not communists who backed and rearmed Hitler's
Germany. Nuclear bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by communists.
It was not communists who attacked Nicaragua. It wasn't communists who mined
Nicaragua's sea-ports, damaging Soviet ships and killing their crew; or
destroyed Nicaraguan oil installations at Corinto. Communists did not attack El
Salvador, Dominican Republic, Korea, Angola, Lebanon and just about every other
country on earth. It was not communists who tried to destabilise the world
socialist community by provoking counter-revolutions in Hungary in 1956,
Czechoslovakia in 1968, or Afghanistan and Poland in the 1980s. It was not
communists who overthrew Chile's progressive Allende government and installed
Pinochet; or overthrew Spain's democratic government and brought Franco to
power. Nor did communists plan or launch the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
Communists did not bomb Libya. Communists did not attack or occupy Malaya,
Indonesia, Cyprus, Aden, Iraq, Iran, or attack Afghanistan from Pakistan. And
communist troops do not occupy Northern Ireland. It was not communists who
bombed the innocent people of Kampuchea (Cambodia) and installed Pol Pot, and
communists did not reduce the population of Laos by three million to three and a
half million in the secret bombing war against that country. And communists did
not invade and still occupy the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada.

These attacks, and many more, were the actions of anti-communists and the forces
of capital.

It was not communists, but US or British capitalists who have been involved in
acts of aggression, invasions or military occupations, usually to put down
progressive governments or popular uprisings, such as in Honduras in 1905, Cuba
in 1906, Nicaragua in 1912, Haiti in 1914, the Dominican Republic in 1916, Cuba
in 1917, Nicaragua in 1926, the Philippines in 1945-1956, Greece 1946-1949,
China 1946-1949, Paraguay 1947, Costa Rica 1948, Burma 1949-1961, Puerto Rico
1950, Korea 1950-1953, Guatemala 1954, Vietnam 1954-1973, Costa Rica 1955,
Lebanon 1958, Laos 1959-1962, Cuba 1961, Guatemala 1962, Panama 1964, Columbia
1964, Laos 1964-1970, Dominican Republic 1965, Thailand 1966, Haiti 1969,
Cambodia (now Kampuchea) 1970, Trinidad and Tobago 1970, Laos 1971-1973, Chile
1973, Angola 1975, Zaire 1978, Costa Rica 1979, Iran 1980, and in the 1980s so
far: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, and covert or mercenary
operations against Afghanistan and a number of other countries.

According to the US Brookings Institute the US used its armed forces in other
countries on 215 occasions between 1946 and 1975 alone.

It wasn't British communists who said "me too" to the US.

"The Western Powers have got to be strong... They have got to be perfrctly clear
as to the kind of world they want and stand for it until they get it."

(British Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, House of Parliament, Oct 17
1950.)

"We ourselves have to keep forces in various parts of the world, garrisoning key
points such as Hong Kong or the Middle East... or engaged in actual fighting
against Communist banditry in Malaya. Therefore our military forces are
stretched."

(British Labour Prime Minister Attlee, in a broadcast, July 31 1950.)

"Then there are the British forces which are spread about the East and the Far
East... in Hong Kong, Malaya and to some extent in the Canal Zone of the Middle
East... This makes a numerical total of twenty-six divisions."

(Winston Churchill, House of Parliament, Jan 30 1952.)

"The units of our army are almost all overseas."

(Winston Churchill, House of Parliament, July 30 1952.)

No Soviet politician or military man has ever been recorded as making statements
like any of the following:

"Now that we have got a head start on the H. Bomb we should lay down the law...
not as diplomats, but as soldiers... We have got to act while we have the
advantage."

(Former US Commander in Berlin General Howley, Feb 6 1950.)

"President Truman told a press conference today that the United States was
relying on force rather than diplomacy in its dealings with the Soviet Union."

(Manchester Guardian Sept 21 1951.)

"War! As soon as possible! Now!... We must start by hitting below the belt. This
war cannot be conducted according to Marquis of Queensberry rules."

(US Military Attache in Moscow General Grow, 1952.)

"We need a voice which clearly takes our leadership. Communism must be
destroyed... We must hit below the belt... War! As quickly as possible! Now!"

(Former US Military Attache in Moscow Major General Robert Grow.)

It was not any Soviet politician or General who said any of the following:

"We must maintain armed forces all over the world. The United States may have to
occupy more countries before the cold war is ended."

(US Vice President Barkley, New Orleans, May 22 1950.)

  "By the use of economic aid we succeeded in getting access to Iranian oil and
we are now well established in the economy of that country. to acquire control
over her foreign policy. make her join the Bagdad Pact. .the Shah would not dare
even to make any changes in his cabinet without consulting our Ambassador."

(Letter from US Council on Foreign Relations member millionaire Nelson
Rockefeller to President Eisenhower, January 1956.)

"Our aim is not simply to appropriate oil in one way or another (say in easily
accessible Nigeria or Venezuela) but to crush OPEC. Therefore we have to use
direct force in order to get hold of large and concentrated oil deposits which
can be opened up rapidly so as to put an end to the artificial oil shortage and
thus to lower the price... Since this is the ultimate and there is only one
target possible: Saudi Arabia... Fortunately, these are not only rich oilfields
but they are also concentrated in a very small area, a fraction of the Saudi
Arabian territory... While Vietnam was full of trees and brave people and our
national interest was almost invisible, what we have here is no trees, very few
people and a clear objective."

(Advisor to the US Defence Department Professor Miles Ignotas, March 1975.)

"The economic health and well-being of the United States, Western Europe, Japan
depend upon continued access to the oil from the Persian area."

(President Carter, Department of State Bulletin, April 1978.)

"Western industrialised societies are largely dependent on the oil resources of
the Middle East region and a threat to access to that oil would constitute a
grave threat to the vital national interests. This must be dealt with; and that
does not exclude the use of force if necessary."

(US Secretary of State Alexander Haig, March 11 1981.)

"As outlined in the paper, the strategy for Southwest Asia, including the
Persian Gulf, directs American forces to be ready to force their way in if
necessary, and not to wait for an invitation from a friendly government, which
has been the publicly stated policy."

(US Defense Department, reported in New York Times May 30 1982.)

"We must be prepared for waging a conventional war that may extend to many parts
of the globe. Many of the resources that we need for energy and many essential
strategic minerals are found thousands of miles from our shores... If we are to
safeguard our access, and the access of the free world, to these resources, we
must increase our military and naval strength."

(US Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger, April 28 1981.)

"As the largest producer, the largest source of capital, and the biggest
contributor to the global mechanism, we must set the pace and assume the
responsibility of the majority stockholder in this corporation known as the
world... Nor is this for a given term of office. This is a permanent
obligation."

(Leo D. Welch, Secretary-Treasurer of US Standard Oil Company, 1946.)

"It will become increasingly difficult in the near future to protect US overseas
interests with conventional weapons... I have in mind situations far from our
shores,... where we would have difficulty, from a logistics point of view, at
least, in reaching the areas in which we have considerable US interests.

.we have an added motivation... the need for the United States to look more and
more overseas for the resources to provide economic strength... we will be
looking increasingly towards Africa and the Middle East, as well as South
America, for the materials required by our industrial economy... We will require
free access and intercourse with many far distant nations of the world in order
to remain a leading export - import nation.

We may have confrontations with nuclear or non-nuclear nations whose
geographical location is such that we have no adequate means of protecting our
interests with conventional weapons... The use of nuclear weapons with varying
capabilities might be the only effective method of accomplishing our objectives,
protecting our interests, and minimising the overall death and destruction that
might accrue."

(US Vice Admiral Gerald E Miller, Congressional Testimony, March 18 1976.)

"The United States, as an island nation heavily dependent on overseas raw
materials, must continue its forward deployment of forces in Asia and the
Pacific region. There is no cheaper way to American security."

(US Defence Secretary Frank Carlucci.)

"You know, there was a time when our national security was based on a standing
army here within our own borders and shore batteries of artillery along our
coasts... The world has changed. Today, our national security can be threatened
in far away places. It is up to all of us to be aware of the strategic
importance of such places and to be able to identify them... ...all are vital to
us and if it went to world powers hostile to the free world, there would be a
direct threat to the United States and to our allies."

(Ronald Reagan, in a Television Address, Oct 27 1983.)

"In Asia our efforts were far less successful... the conception of force was too
nakedly shown, too much stress was laid on the military side, while we largely
ignored the importance of preliminary economic preparations for the alliances we
wished to make. But the same military measures will often be found
unobjectionable if the way to them is paved with economic aid...

The most significant example in practice of what I mean was the Iranian
experiment with which, as you will remember, I was directly concerned. By the
use of economic aid we succeeded in getting access to Iranian oil and we are now
well established in the economy of that country. The strengthening of our
economic position in Iran has enabled us to acquire control over her foreign
policy and in particular to make her join the Bagdad Pact. At the present time
the Shah would not dare even to make any changes in his cabinet without
consulting our Ambassador...

For us to have in Asia, Africa and other under-developed areas a political and
military influence as great or greater than we obtained through the Marshall
Plan in Europe. It is necessary for us to act carefully and patiently, and in
the early stages confine ourselves to securing very modest political concessions
in exchange for our economic aid (in some exceptional cases even without any
concessions in return). The way will then be open to us, but at a later stage,
to step up both our political price and our military demands...

In this case governmental subsidies and credits may take the form of military
appropriations. The hooked fish needs no bait. At the same time economic support
for those strata of the local business community which are ready to co-operate
with the US should be increased and the necessary conditions would be created
for businessmen of this type to be put in key economic positions and accordingly
for their political influence to be increased.

...the main emphasis in economic assistance as regards government subsidies and
credits should be on creating conditions in which eventually the economic
relations established by us would work for and make it natural for these
countries to join military pacts and alliances inspired by us. The essence of
this policy should be that the development of our economic relations with these
countries would ultimately allow us to take over key positions in the native
economy... By this means we can hope to divert the foreign policy of these
countries in a more desirable direction...

...support should be given in particular... to native businessmen who are
struggling against their colonial status.

...if we do not support them we lose all hope of exercising a restraining
influence on them until it is too late. If this happens the desire for
independence may result in a nationalism so strong as to escape not only from
the control of the old colonial powers but also from our own control.

Extensive economic aid... should always be presented as an expression of a
sincere and disinterested desire on the part of the US to help and co-operate
with them."

(Letter from US Council on Foreign Relations member millionaire Nelson
Rockefeller to President Eisenhower, January 1956.)

"Now the Pacific has become an Anglo-Saxon lake, and our line of defence runs
through the chain of islands fringing the coast of Asia."

(US General MacArthur, Daily Mail March 2 1949.)

American bellicosity cannot use the Communist threat as its excuse. It didn't
start with the Cold War:

"For defensive purposes the sovereignty of the United States extends to the
whole continent."

(US Secretary of State Richard Olney, 1895.)

"Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and can be
ours. And we shall get it, as our Mother England has told us how... We will
cover the ocean with our merchant marine. We will build a navy to the measure of
our greatness... Our institutes will follow our trade. American law, American
order, American civilisation, and the American flag will plant themselves on
shores hitherto bloody and benighted, by those agencies of God henceforth made
beautiful and bright."

(US Senator Albert Beveridge, 1898.)

American bellicosity has always had the same aim and will continue to make
enemies:

"In the future, we are more likely to be involved in Iraq-type things,
Panama-type things, Grenada-type things. Our position should be the protection
of the oilfields. Now whether Kuwait gets put back, that's subsidiary stuff."

(Chairman of US Armed Services Committee Les Aspin, 1990.)

"They know we own their country [Iraq]. We own their airspace. We dictate the
way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a
good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need."

(US Brigadier General William Looney, Washington Post, August 30 1999.)

"US aid is to "improve U.S.-Kazakh military cooperation while establishing a
U.S.-interoperable base along the oil-rich Caspian."

(U.S. State Department Report, 2002.)

"In oil's name, the United States is immersed in a new kind of colonialism, for
the resources that lie under foreign feet. They could care less about the
people. Therein lies an even greater tragedy."

(U.S. Dept. of State, Congressional Budget Justifications: Foreign Operations,
Fiscal Year 2003.)

It was not the Kremlin, but the Pentagon which in 1980 listed US troops in:

Europe: FRG 239,000, Great Britain 23,000, Italy 11,700, Spain 8,700, Turkey
4,900, Greece 3,300, Iceland 2,900, Nederlands 2,200, Belgium 2,000, Portugal
1,400, in ships of the 6th Fleet in Europe 25,000.

Asia: Japan 46,200, South Korea 39,000, Philippines 14,100, Guam 8,800,
Australia 700, Midway Island 500, US 7th Fleet 22,000.

Latin America: Panama Canal Zone 9,500, Puerto Rico 3,500, Guantanamo (Cuba)
2,100.

Also: Bermuda 1,300, Diego Garcia 1,100, Canada 700, Saudi Arabia 400, other
countries such as Israel 1,800.

Also 196,000 US marines operate in the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the
Mediterranean.

Also in 1980, the US was planning new bases in Egypt, Israel, Oman, Somalia and
Kenya.

Communists have not built a network of military bases all over the world on
other nations' lands.

The USA has never been attacked on its own soil. The US now has some 2,500 bases
in 114 other countries around the world; many of which can deliver or have
nuclear weapons targeted on the USSR - all on foreign soil. A number of other
countries also have their own nuclear weapons targeted on the USSR.

Many former British bases in its colonies around the world were given over to
the US as a result of the Destroyers for Bases agreement in 1940 and other
agreements during the war.

"To use our strategic air power successfully we must have bases so located
around the world that we can reach any target we may be called upon to hit."

(US Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee.)

Main US bases abroad include: West Germany 188, South Korea 40, Japan 32, UK 18,
Philippines 11, Italy 9, Turkey 7, Spain 6, Panama 6, Greece 4, Bermuda 3,
Greenland 2, Australia 2, Antigua 1, Belgium 1, Diego Garcia 1, Iceland 1,
Canada 1, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay) 1, Netherlands 1, Portugal 1. Total 336.

"The West could, with relative impunity launch atomic attacks on the Soviet
Union from a perimeter of 360 degrees, manned by more than 250 allied bases."

(General Norstad, US Supreme Commander of NATO, in The Times June 14 1957,)

"In the event of a major war, certain objectives were clear. The United States
should follow "what has been our one and only basic policy in the last thirty
years. This is that we prefer to fight our wars, if they be necessary, in
someone elses territory."

Through its farflung system of bases and the mobility of its forces, the United
States would shield itself..."

(US researcher M.S.Sherry, quoting from US declassified documents JCS 1496/2 and
JCS 1519, of September and October 1945, in his book "Preparing for the Next
War.".)

By 1983, nineteen nations had nuclear weapons on their territory - eighteen of
these being capitalist; not counting China.

The USSR did not have one single nuclear weapon based on the soil of another
country.

Contrary to suggestions even emanating from small sections of the peace movement
in Britain, no other Socialist country has nuclear weapons on its soil.

During the so-called Cuban "missile" crisis in 1962 the Soviet Union was forced
to repossess the nuclear weapons it had given to Cuba after the US Bay of Pigs
invasion of Cuba because of President Kennedy's threat to commence hostilities
against the USSR if this was not done.

Is there one law for the socialist Soviet Union and another for the capitalist
world of the United States of America?

"...adequate military strength deployed in key areas across the world [was
essential for maintaining B.M.] a progressive and integrated capitalist world
economy."

(Eugene Rostow, to US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1981.)

Asked to explain US MX and Trident weapons:

"I think for the same purposes as in the past: To bully smaller nations. You
wouldn't need all this destructive power to bully a smaller nation if Russia did
not exist. But most of the smaller nations we've been opposed to are allied to
Russia. So, if we want to be able to say to Russia: we may have to batter or
even annihilate your small friends here, like North Vietnam, and you had better
not get into the fray - you'd better stand back - then we can't have too many
weapons in the balance."

(Daniel Ellsberg, in "Nuclear Armaments: an interview with Dr. Daniel Ellsberg."
Berkely 1980.)

Chapter 50

SOVIET ARMS PROPOSALS AND US "CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEACE."
Nothing has changed as far as the West's leadership of the arms race is
concerned. Maxim Gorky wrote in 1932:

"The bourgeoisie rejected the Soviet Union's project for general disarmament,
and this alone is sufficient to justify us in saying that the capitalists are
socially dangerous people, that they are preparing for a new world war. They are
keeping the Soviet Union in a tense state of defence, compelling the working
class to spend a vast amount of precious time and material on the production of
weapons of defence against the capitalists, who are organising to attack the
Soviet Union and to turn this huge country into their colony, their market."

(Maxim Gorky, "On Whose Side, "Masters of Culture"? Reply to American
Correspondents." 1932.)

The British answer was to extend NATO even further; such as to help the
Portugese retain their domination of countries such as Angola, Mozambique and
Burkino Faso and prevent the spread of socialism there:

"NATO should broaden its maritime horizons... The South Atlantic should now be
included to give support and backing to our Portugese allies against the spread
of communism in Africa."

(Tory MP Geoffrey Rippon in the House of Commons; in "Round Table July 1970.)

Repeated Soviet proposals for a system of collective security in Europe were
rejected in the late 1930s. The result of that was the Second World War.

The manipulative power of our mass media is such that the majority of people in
Britain, those who do not put any effort into seeking alternative information
sources, largely because they are not informed of their existence, are denied
the chance to examine Soviet proposals for themselves. But then, we have a free
press; don't we?

If our "free press" is unforthcoming, then perhaps we should look at the
'unfree' press of the Soviet Union published in English in the UK in order to
find out what proposals are made or not made, voted for or against, and by whom:

"The Soviet Union solemnly declares that it will never use nuclear weapons
against states which renounce manufacture, acquisition and deployment of such
weapons on their territory."

(Leonid Brezhnev, quoted in Soviet Weekly, London, January 1982.)

The US ignored this declaration. So did the mass media.

The Soviet Union also declared at UN in 1982 that it would not be the first to
use nuclear weapons and proposed that the other member nations declare the same.

"We will never be the first to use nuclear weapons."

(USSR, June 18 1982.)

The US replied the same day:

"For us that is unacceptable."

(White House Press Secretary Larry Speakes, June 18 1982.)

This was adopted by the majority. The US voted against it. The British
government whispered it among themselves. The mass media largely ignored it.

Also in 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev stated that:

"War will not come from the Soviet Union, we will never start a war."

(Mikhail Gorbachev, 1985.)

The US and British governments and NATO uses the argument that the West must
have superiority in nuclear weapons because the Soviet Union has superiority in
conventional weapons. But the Soviet Union has also made a declaration not to be
the first to use nuclear or conventional weapons in Europe.

The US, Britain and NATO uses the argument that the West must have a nuclear
"deterrent" because of a Soviet superiority in tanks. But it is important to
understand that overall there is a rough parity between these kinds of weapons.
The Soviet Union has more tanks, but the West is superior in anti-tank weapons.
So there is more or less parity.

The Warsaw treaty organisation also proposed the following:

"The Warsaw Treaty member states address the member states of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organisation on the proposal to conclude a treaty on the mutual non-use
of force and on the maintenance of relations of peace..."

(From the Prague Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, January 1983.)

The preposterous arguments put forward against unilateral disarmament completely
collapse when you consider the example of Canada:

"We have withdrawn from any nuclear role by Canada's armed forces. We are thus
not only the first country in the world with the capacity to produce nuclear
weapons, who choose not to do so; we are also the first nuclear armed country to
have chosen to divest itself of such weapons."

(Canadian Premier Trudeau, member of NATO, to UN Special Session on Disarmament.
1978.)

The last nuclear weapon on Canadian soil was returned to the US in July 1984. Do
the Canadian people now tremble in fear of a Soviet nuclear attack? And does
anybody in Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain or Portugal lose any sleep at the
thought of finding the streets overrun by Soviet tanks one morning?

And what do the peoples of Grenada, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchea, El
Salvador, Dominican Republic, Korea, Lebanon, Libya, Cuba, Haiti, Honduras,
Guatemala, Mexico, Uruguay, Puerto Rico - all of whom have been invaded by US
forces - think of a Soviet threat?

The Soviet threat is a lie. The ridiculous assertion that the Soviet Union or
any other country in the world socialist community presents a military threat to
the capitalist world does not stand up to even two sentences of simple serious
thought.

It shows the sad state of our education that the mass media is able to convince
even one British half-wit that the day after we get rid of US nuclear weapons
from our soil will see Soviet tanks outside Tesco's or a SAM-7 has hit
Sainsbury's.

In no other country, except perhaps the US, has the mass media such control over
public opinion.

"The hard truth is, as my recent visits in both the East and the West have made
clear to me, that many peoples of the world have less fear of the Red Army than
they fear that the United States may rashly precipitate atomic warfare against
which their population centres are utterly defenceless."

(John Foster Dulles, speech at the Annual Dinner of the Conference of Christians
and Jews, May 12 1952.)

"The main reason why a good part of the world does not love us is a double fear
that we will bring about World War III and economic disaster."

(New York Times April 11 1952.)

"There are those who wonder if we do not tend to trap ourselves by saying 'No'
automatically every time the Kremlin says 'Yes' without considering the
consequences."

(New York Times May 11 1952.)

The main reason why the British media so controls the thoughts of the British
people is that they do not want them to realise that the Soviet Union wants
peace and that there is therefore no reason for the arms race forced on them by
the US and impoverishing the British people.

But it is the US dominated capitalist system that continually frustrates the
desire of ordinary people for peace and prosperity.

"Secretary of State Marshall accuses the Soviet Union of waging a propaganda
campaign for peace. This is a curious accusation. Don't we want peace?...

Twice this year Stalin tried for direct peace talks with Truman. Once Truman
tried for a direct peace talk with Stalin. On each occasion the military
diplomats and bankers in uniform moulding American foreign policy prevented a
meeting.

We have the atom bomb. The Russians seem to have a weapon more terrifying: the
peace feeler."

(I.F.Stone, New York Star, Nov 15 1948.)

What is the Soviet viewpoint on the need for military force?:

"In terms of internal conditions, the Soviet Union needs no army. But since the
danger of war coming from the imperialist camp persists, and since complete and
general disarmament has not been achieved, the CPSU considers it necessary to
maintain the defensive power of the Soviet state and the combat preparedness of
its Armed Forces at a level ensuring the decisive and complete defeat of any
enemy who dares to encroach upon the Soviet land."

(From the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Moscow, 1961.)

US "CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEACE."
One of the many obstacles the US puts in the way of disarmament is that of
verification of nuclear testing. But verification in the USSR is no barrier. US
testing personnel and devices have access to Soviet testing grounds. There is
complete contradiction in US claims anyway. The US claims to have satellite and
other intelligence facilities when it has claimed Soviet testing in the past.
The US cannot make these claims and then create non-existent problems of
verification unless its intelligence is faulty in the first place. If it is,
then the US cannot make such claims as in the past.

"We cannot afford, through any misguided and perilous idea of avoiding an
aggressive attitude, to permit the first blow to be struck against us. Our
government, under such conditions, should press the issue to a prompt political
decision, while making all preparations to strike the first blow if necessary."

(US Joint Chiefs of Staff directives 1496/2 and SWNCC 282.)

"It is still possible, I believe, to fight some wars using conventional forces
that don't involve nuclear weapons... but I think that if you advise potential
opponents in advance that you do not intend to cross certain lines, then you
have almost assured another Vietnam... Any time you get into a war the
possibility that you will use every weapon available has to be left open."

(US Secretary of Defence Weinberger, on being asked if he would have used
nuclear weapons in Vietnam, at his confirmation hearing, Jan 6 1981.)

Since its experience in Vietnam, the US does not believe in fighting a
conventional war, which it cannot sustain and is unlikely to win. It would
switch to nuclear very soon:

"High Military Officers in the Pentagon have been saying they cannot be expected
to fight a conventional war for longer than a few days if millions of Americans
are able to watch it night after night on their television screens. Public
revulsion would create intolerable pressures to scale back or end the fighting
altogether, as happened in Vietnam."

(Washington correspondent of the London Evening Standard, Nov 5 1986.)

Equally fallacious are the twin ideas of a "winnable" and a "limited" nuclear
war expressed by the Carter administration's Directive 59 of July 1980, which
confirmed the US "first Strike" and "limited" and "winnable" nuclear war
policies..

"I regard war as inevitable, and the side which goes into action with the full
force of atomic weapons will win. The future will belong to the side which dares
to wage preventive war. The tension between East and West will continue, and
will only be interrupted by a war. That is why the West, if it wants to beat
Russia, must launch a preventive war using all atomic weapons at its disposal."

(Former Nazi General Bodo Zimmerman, Sunday Express, London, Feb 28 1954.)

"I could see where you could have an exchange of tactical nuclear weapons
against corps in the field without bringing either one of the major powers to
pushing the button."

(Ronald Reagan, Oct 21 1981.)

"You have survivability of command and control, survivability of industrial
potential, protection of a percentage of your citizens, and you have a
capability that inflicts more damage on the opposition than it can inflict on
you. That's the way you can have a winner..."

(George Bush, in a Los Angeles Times interview in 1980, when asked to explain
his statement how a nuclear war could be won.)

The USSR does not believe in the ridiculous US concept of a "winnable",
"limited", and "containable" nuclear war. It would escalate immediately.

"The idea of a "limited" nuclear war is a myth... A nuclear conflict, even if it
starts in Europe, will turn into a general nuclear war within hours, and its
flames will spread to the US too."

(Gene Laroque, Director of the Centre for Defense Information, Washington, in an
interview with a Pravda correspondent, Sept 5 1983.)

"In reality, any war in central Europe would rapidly escalate into an all-out
nuclear war."

(British American Security Information Council.)

The US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency described the Soviet pledge not to be
the first to use nuclear weapons as "unacceptable" to the West "because neutron
weapons might be needed as a last resort".

Talking about the US's cowardly use of neutron weapons, former Pentagon nuclear
strategist Daniel Ellsberg, who was jailed for publishing the "Pentagon Papers",
stated that:

"This warhead is designed to be used advantageously only for first-use against
an adversary who does not have nuclear weapons with which to retaliate: the kind
of opponents we have actually fought in the last thirty years - the Koreans, the
Chinese (before they exploded an atom bomb) and the Indochinese. In the future,
occasions might arise again in Korea or in the Middle East."

(Former US nuclear strategist Daniel Ellsberg.)

"The simple fact of the matter is that... it is possible that with nuclear
weapons there can be some use of them... in connection with what is up to that
time a war solely within a European theatre."

(US Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger, Oct 27 1981.)

"It would be advantageous to use tactical nuclear weapons and chemical weapons
at an early stage.

Options at this stage should include deep nuclear strikes."

(From US Army Training Manual "Airland Battle 86".)

"I made up my mind that the best way to save the lives of those young men - and
those of the Japanese soldiers - was to drop those bombs [on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki] and end the war. I did it. And I would say to you I would do it again
if I had to."

(US President Truman, May 10 1950.)

"He would not hesitate to use the atom bomb if it were necessary for the welfare
of the United States."

(The Times April 8 1949.)

"General Eisenhower said that he was concerned at the apparently growing opinion
that the United States should never drop the atom bomb first. 'To my mind the
use of the atom bomb would be on this basis: Does it advantage me or does it
not, when I get into a war? If I thought the net gain was on my side, I would
use it instantly.'"

(US Senate Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Joint Committee, March 11 1951.
Daily Telegraph March 13 1951.)

"I would request the use of theatre nuclear weapons at a time when I could not
accomplish my mission conventionally."

(NATO Supreme Commander in Europe, US General Rogers, two days after the Soviet
Union's "no first use" pledge at the UN.)

"They (the Soviets) can expect to lose many times over the twenty million they
lost in World War two they keep talking about in every speech. They have to
think that the number of losses will be multiplied many times over and not that
we plan just to take out missile silos in Siberia."

(US Senator Glen, during Senate hearings on nuclear war strategy.)

Similar contempt for people and disdain for human lives was also expressed in
the remark that:

"You can have a limited nuclear war. The USA has already fought such a war, in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Japanese not only lived through it but are
flourishing."

(Eugene Rostow, director of US Arms Control and Development Agency.)

As the secret "Pentagon Papers" published in 1971 show, the US
military-political leadership seriously considered a "pre-emptive" nuclear
strike in Vietnam in order to "hasten the end of the war".

Henry Kissinger's memoirs also reveal that Denis Healey as a member of NATO's
Nuclear Planning Group also argued for early use of nuclear weapons long before
Ronald Reagan was anywhere near the White House or Mrs. Thatcher near
Parliament.

Who profits from peace?

As we have seen; in the socialist countries nobody profits from an arms race;
everybody suffers, everybody loses; while everybody gains from peace and
disarmament.

In the West however, it is quite the opposite. Although "defence" costs the
average British family some £24 a week (1985 figures); not everybody loses:

"France and England must have a large enough credit in the United States to
prevent the collapse of world trade... Perhaps our going to war is the only way
in which our present prominent trade position can be maintained and a panic
averted."

(Walter H Page, US Ambassador in London, 1917.)

"A 'peace scare' seized the New York Stock Exchange last night, causing
considerable selling. Prices declined, especially in steel securities and the
so-called 'war securities'."

(News Chronicle March 16 1940.)

"Only an improved international situation can dim the business outlook."

(Journal of Commerce March 23 1948.)

"In a lot of ways, World War Two was not hell for the US... the elimination of
unemployment, the general increase in incomes, the boom in business..."

(From "Economic Consequences of a Third World War." in Business Week, NY, No.
973, April 24 1948.)

"Peace if it really arrived would upset things. At present arms expenditure and
aid to other countries are bolstering business."

(US News and World Report Dec 31 1948.)

"Just when people thought the boom might be tapering off, the war in Korea set
off a new boom. It's really a made-to-order situation to keep business at a high
level."

(US News and World Report, summer 1950.)

"The possibility of peace talks on Korea interrupted Wall Street's recovery
today and caused a fair sized set back."

(The Times March 26 1951.)

"The possibility of a temporary truce haunts United States policy planners."

(Business Week April 12 1951.)

"The foreigh policies of this country, Britain and France have now entered a
truly agonising crisis. The cause is the so-called peace offensive now being
carried on by the masters of the Kremlin."

(Washington Post April 16 1951.)

"Sudden peace could work havoc with business."

(New York Times May 20 1951.)

"The coincidence between the boom and the conclusion of the Paris Treaties, and
the obvious connection between the rise in share values... and France's
agreement to the rearmament of West Germany... the buyers expect that arms
contracts... will lead to an increase in profits and thus to higher dividends.
The stock exchange thus counts in advance on an arms boom and regards this
development as guaranteed."

(Frankfurter Rundschau, Jan 3 1955.)

"Peace would pull the props from beneath the entire economic structure."

(US News and World Report.)

And there was a boom on the Tokyo stock exchange when the Korean war started.

Completely ignoring the USSR's "no first use" pledge at the UN, Ronald Reagan
spoke of his own "contribution to peace" and makes the assertion that "we were
never the aggressors".

Then why does he force Europe to accept such NATO concepts as "first strike",
"demonstration shots", "preventive strikes", and "launch on warning"?

Reagan's "contributions to peace include denying visas to what he called "left
wing" delegates to UN disarmament talks; including Romesh Chandra, chairman of
the World Peace Council at Helsinki. The US also refused visas to over 300
people to attend the UN Special Session on Disarmament in 1982.

More US "contributions to peace" include:

UN resolutions:

Resolution:US voting.

Ruling out direct or indirect use of force against any country in Central
America or Caribbean by any member state of the UN:VETOED.

Keep UN Security Council informed about events in Central America and
Caribbean:AGAINST.

Halt production and eliminate stockpiling of nuclear weapons:AGAINST.

Against development of nuclear weapons in states where they are not sited at
present:AGAINST.

Prohibition of neutron weapons:AGAINST.

Reaching agreement on total banning of nuclear tests:AGAINST.

Resume Soviet-US talks on chemical warfare:AGAINST.

Calling on states to refrain from production of binary and other chemical
weapons and not deploying such in other countries:AGAINST.

On banning cooperation with South Africa and Israel in nuclear weapons
field:AGAINST.

Condemning Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear research installations:AGAINST.

In voting against virtually every recent UN disarmament proposal, the British
Government has consistently frustrated the peaceful plans and development of
every region of the world:

Proposal:Sponsor For Against Abstain UK vote.

Additional Protocol 1 of the Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in
Latin America: Mexico135   0   9 FOR.

Cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons:Mexico 119   2   26 AGAINST.

Urgent need for comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty:Australia and New Zealand
117   0   29 ABSTAIN.

Establishment of a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in the region of the Middle East:
Egypt Consensus FOR.

Establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in South Asia: Pakistan 94   3   46
ABSTAIN.

Conclusion of an international convention on the strengthening of the security
of non-nuclear states against the use or threat of nuclear weapons: Bulgaria 108
17   15 AGAINST.

Prevention of an arms race in outer space: Sri Lanka/Egypt 147   1   1 ABSTAIN.

Immediate cessation and prohibition of nuclear weapons tests: USSR 118   4   24
AGAINST.

Freeze on nuclear weapons: India 124   15   7 AGAINST.

Nuclear arms freeze: Mexico and Sweden 124   13   8 AGAINST.

Condemnation of nuclear war:USSR 95   19   30 AGAINST.

Nuclear weapon freeze: USSR 108   18   20 AGAINST.

Implementation of the declaration on the denuclearisation of Africa: Sierra
Leone 142   0   6 ABSTAIN.

(Hansard July 30 1984.)

At the UN, of 157 member states, only one country voted against a resolution
calling on nations to refrain from production of chemical weapons and deployment
in states which do not have them at present. That same country possesses around
300,000 tons of such weapons and is producing new types tested on Afghanistan
and El Salvador. That country was the US.

2,000 tons of chemical weapons is at present stored in West Germany for
deployment in Britain and Italy.

What is it for? How would it be used?

"This would be done largely by dropping waste materials. The zone would be such
that no life would survive there. It could remain as a barrier if necessary for
years."

(The Daily Mail, Dec 18 1954, speaking of a planned creation of a radio-active
zone at the beginning of a war in West Germany.)

"Under such circumstances biological weapons are a weapon which can considerably
increase the effects of war on the civilian population. It is thus conceivable
that large parts of the population of an industrial area should be infected with
fatal or crippling biological material... Perhaps the germ of pest, typhus or
cholera... There are also many types of material designed to infect animals or
effect vegetation..."

(US General William M. Creasy, chief of the Department of Biological and
Chemical Warfare of the United States Army, in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
Dec 24 1954.)

The paper goes on to describe the effects of radiation, regarding Hiroshima:

"...in the past year out of a total of 30,000 births more than 8,500 were not
normal, nearly 4,500 new born babies died immediately after birth, 500 were born
dead and over 3,600 were monsters or idiots. Some had no eyes or no brain,
others had deformed heads."

(Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Dec 24 1954.)

What is this stockpile of chemical, biological and radiation weapons really for?
The unemployed? Communists? Social upheaval? Chemical warfare is no good against
modern military forces who are protected against chemical warfare. It could only
be of use against civilians. It is therefore most suitable in times of social
unrest - for class warfare.

The perfect capitalist weapon is the Neutron bomb. It destroys human life but
leaves capital intact. The effects of financing it has the opposite effect on
Third World economies: it leaves people alive but destroys their wealth.

At the UN in 1963, the Soviet Union tabled a Draft Convention banning
development, production and use of chemical and biological warfare. The US and a
number of other capitalist countries refused even to discuss the matter.

In 1975 the USSR, USA and Britain stated to the UN Disarmament Committee that
they had no biological weapon stocks. In 1980 attempts were made to accuse the
Soviet Union of violating this. The Soviet Union again formally stated that it
does not possess any bacteriological agents, toxins, weapons, equipment or means
of delivering such weapons as named in the Convention.

The US makes such fabrications in order to justify its own production and
stockpiling of such weapons.

US President Carter assigned $2.47 billion for a new chemical warfare programme.
Later $4 billion was allocated.

The US is now armed with aircraft containers with agents for bubonic plague,
anthrax and encephalitis. US stocks of nerve gas run to tens of thousands of
tons.

The US did not ratify the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol until 1975.

"The US is not a party to any treaty now in force, that prohibits or restricts
the use in warfare of toxic or non-toxic gases, or of bacteriological warfare."

(From: US Army Field Manual "The Law of Land Warfare.")

The US broke off talks on production of chemical weapons in 1980.

On a UN Emergency Session on Palestine resolution ending Israeli aggression, 129
countries voted in favour; two voted against: the US and Israel.

Fed up with having to make all these tiresome "contributions to peace", Ronald
Reagan said at the UN in June 1982:

"We need deeds not words."

(Ronald Reagan, at UN June 1982.)

As we shall see in a later chapter; Reagan's "deeds not words" include:

Supplying El Salvador's junta with chemical weapons, cluster and phosphorus
bombs.

Supplying Pakistan with similar weapons for use by Afghan "rebels".

Supplying Thailand with chemical shells for use against Kampuchea.

Supplying Pakistan with facilities for spreading viruses via mosquitos into
Afghanistan.

Spreading biological diseases among the crops, animals, and people of Cuba.

Finally; the Soviet proposals to rid the world of nuclear weapons by the end of
the century have been largely ignored by the capitalist world and its media;
which invariably dismisses Soviet disarmament proposals as "propaganda".

"If all that we are doing is indeed viewed as mere propaganda, why not respond
to it according to the principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth"? We have stopped nuclear explosions. Then you Americans could take
revenge by doing likewise. You could deal us yet another propaganda blow, say,
by suspending the development of one of your new strategic missiles. And we
would respond with the same kind of "propaganda". And so on and so forth. Would
anyone be harmed by competition in such "propaganda"?"

(Mikhail Gorbachev, in an interview with Time Magazine, Sept 1985.)

But the Soviet Union is here to stay; and cannot be ignored:

"Whoever desires peace and seeks to enter into businesslike relations with us
can always count on our support. But those who might attempt to attack our
country... will meet with a crushing defeat. The gentlemen of the bourgeoisie
will only have themselves to blame if some governments dear to them which still
by the grace of God firmly hold the reigns of government will be missing on the
day after such a war."

(XVIIth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1934.)

Adolf Hitler found this out ten years later. And so did the British Municheers
and appeasers. And it is no less true today.

Unfortunately, American Presidents only seem to sober up in old age:

"When we get to the point, as we one day will, that both sides know that in any
outbreak of general hostilities, regardless of the element of surprise,
destruction will be both reciprocal and complete, possibly we will have sense
enough to meet at the conference table with the understanding that the era has
ended and the human race mush conform its actions to this truth or die."

(Eisenhower, April 1956, in Washington post Sept 1983.)

"Under certain circumstances likely to develop in Europe, we may be forced to
make first use of nuclear weapons. We will never be able to put into effect our
joint plans in this vital area unless quite exceptional efforts are made to
check European tendencies towards neutralism, pacifism and unilateralism. To
achieve this it is necessary, I feel, to emphasise the theme that the nuclear
weapons balance, particularly in the European theatre, has changed sharply in
favour of the East.

(Supreme Commander of NATO Alexander Haig, in a letter to ex Dutch Nazi
Secretary of NATO Joseph Lunz on the eve of his retirement, June 1979.)

In the Pentagon's military propaganda booklet "Soviet Military Power," from
which most defence or peace 'experts' take most of their material, Soviet
defence spending is completely falsifies by translating Soviet GNP in roubles
into dollars and determining how much it would cost to maintain the Soviet armed
forces at US dollar rates. This mythical Soviet defence budget as a percentage
of its GNP is then compared with the US defence budget and given as a reason to
extend it.

"A ruble estimate is calculated and the figure is made public, but no
dollar-ruble average is presebted. Press releases, hearings and media coverage
ignore it and concentrate on the dollar comparison. This exaggerates Soviet
military spending relative to America's - as the CIA has often admitted.

But a proper accounting and interpretation of both sides' military outlays
indicates that the West outspent the Eastern bolc by $740 billion from 1971
through 1980. Actually Mr. Reagan was off by more than $1, trillion."

(US Professor of Economics and Fellow at the Russian Research Centre at Harvard
University Franklyn Holzman, in International Herald Tribune, March 8 1986.)

"In March, 1978, the World Bank was asked to differentiate between the two
economic systems. The answer they gave was: 'The Russian GNP is estimated at
41-7 per cent of the United States GNP, and the combined GNPs of Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Poland and East Germany are about 55 per cent of the GNP of West
Germany.' This paints a very different picture indeed of the comparative arms
spending of the two blocs."

(Hansard Parliamentary Record, March 14 1978.)

"Let us take first the proposition that Soviet military expenditure exceeds that
of the United States... The Soviet Union itself produces for its own military
expenditure one single figure, 17-2 thousand million roubles with no further
explanation. There is no exchange rate within the bounds of possibility which
could convert this into a figure which exceeds the US figure for military
expenditure of 105 thousand million dollars at current prices...

There is not much doubt that if it were possible to value US military
expenditure at Soviet prices, which is the other half of a proper compatison
between the two countries, then US military expenditure valued in roubles would
exceed that of the Soviet Union... when the is made between any other forms of
expenditure in the two countries - health expenditure, education expenditure, or
the national product as a whole - the difference between the dollar based and
rouble based estimates is very big."

(SIPRI Yearbook 1979.)

"The CIA calculates that Soviet and American military expenditure are about
equal. In this computation they recognise the irrelevance of Soviet statistics:
the agency's analysts calculate how much it would cost the United States, at
current American prices, to acquire the weapons and manpower of the USSR... That
seems to be a sensible way to compare our two countries' military spending..."

(Washington Post journalist Robert Kaiser, in "Russia. The People and the
Power.")

This is at least an honest attempt. But it is still basically flawed. The ruble
is stable and there is no inflation in the USSR; nor are there any profits to
push the prices up. The only scientific way to compare would be to use the
labour theory of value in both cases.

"We and our allies invest approximately 25 per cent more in defense than the
Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact."

(US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Florida, Oct 26 1979.)

The same Pentagon booklet "Soviet Military Power" omits the 40 percent of US
numerical strength such as the National Guard, reserves etc, but includes all
similar Soviet units. It also understates American B-52 bombers by over 300. It
states them as 241; but SALT-2 stated them as 574, and none have been phased out
since then at the time the book was printed.

"You were talking about the Russians being able to do this and that. As a result
of this philosophy of what the Russians could do, a few years ago we developed
the bomber gap, and later we were told there was no bomber gap.

As a result of this same reasoning as to what the Russians could do, we
developed the missile gap... Now we come along later and everyone says there
never was a missile gap.

Now, are you by this testimony opening up a so-called megatonnage gap which will
never occur and which will be just as phoney as the bomber and missile gap."

(George Mahan, Chairman of US Congresional Inquiry in 1956, to US General Curtis
Lemay.)

"This is entirely possible, Mr. Chairman."

(General Curtis Lemay, in answer to the above question.)



British history books - balanced, objective, unbiased?

British school, college and university syllabus books do not contain any of this
information.

All the material and information I have presented here is not made readily
available or even obvious to historians, writers, journalists, teachers,
educators and syllabus publishers. Although I have spent many hundreds of hours
gathering it all together, I did not have to look very far to find any of it.

Many of the books I researched for this work are no longer on the shelves, if
they ever were, of most libraries and bookshops, even college and university
history libraries; except perhaps in very few left wing bookshops, labour
movement archives and museums and libraries, and private collections. Some are
even marked "Restricted Circulation." or for "British Forces Personnel Only." It
is suspected that many that disappeared were bought up in the 1970s and 80s and
destroyed. Most of this kind of material is not only subtly suppressed by the
library distribution system, and certainly by our schools and colleges, but more
'forgotten' by Western historians, publishers, booksellers and libraries. Some
can only be seen at the British Museum Library and are not, nor have been, in
general library circulation. The excuse given is that they are "not called for".
Most are not included in the bibliographies of British history books and
therefore the existence of them is not known; which is one reason why they are
"not called for."

When as a trainee history lecturer, it was suggested I take the class on a trip
to the Tower of London and then set them an essay on what life was like for a
soldier in King Charles' Army centuries ago. Very useful knowledge that! A
sociology of the past perhaps? But certainly not history in its most important
sense; unless history is to mean anything old or 'interesting' that you can do
in evening classes, like antiques, flower arranging or basket weaving. When
instead I taught real history, learning from the past in order to change the
future, the collective life-experience of humanity, I was got rid of. The head
of the history department complained that the students had remarked that I made
them think; which the head of history had probably never done in a lifetime of
teaching. I ended up washing and cleaning and emptying human surgical waste in a
hospital.

Unless teachers learn to be brave and intellectually honest (difficult when they
have a mortgage and bills to pay), future historical, social and economic
education and popular 'knowledge' will also not refer to the US or British
history and continuing complicity in global plunder, exploitation, domination
and control, wars of aggrandisement and acquisition, causing the deaths and
devastation of the homes and lands of millions of people - the thousands of
children under the age of two who will die tonight through simple lack of food,
clean water, medicine and education - the untold millions of unnecessary deaths
among the overwhelming majority of humanity on this incredibly rich and abundant
and ultimately sustainable earth.

From Brian Mitchell. Evolution.

Responses and criticisms welcomed.

Reply to my personal e-mail if you prefer.

My replies to criticisms will be posted.



.



"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; None but ourselves can free our
minds."
(Bob Marley, Redemption song.)

"The most remarkable thing about the world is that you can understand it."
(Einstein.)

"I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set I go
into the other room and read a book."
(Groucho Marx.)

"Above all, always be capable of feeling deeply any injustice against anyone,
anywhere in the world."
(Ernesto (Che) Guevara, in a letter to his children, a few months before he was
killed.)

"The man who never made a mistake never made anything."
(GK Chesterton.)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi/Neoconservatives
/Dinesh_the_Lying_Ch.html?seemore=y





Chronicles Online, Wednesday, March 7, 2007


DINESH THE LYING CHARLATAN


Srdja Trifkovic





On Monday, March 5, Dinesh D'Souza, a Hoover Institution fellow and an
author of some prominence, and I had a lively debate on WDAY's Hot Talk
with Scott Hennen, following our recent vigorous exchanges in print and
on the Web on the nature of Islam. Faced with D'Souza's delusional
ignorance and arrogance in the first five minutes of our debate I
concluded that his knowledge of Islam was pretty tenuous, his claim that
he had spent four years studying it notwithstanding. Hence the key
segment of our exchange, transcribed verbatim from the recording of the
show:




TRIFKOVIC:  Have you actually read the Kuran? Have you ever actually
read the Kuran?

D'SOUZA:      Of course I have.

TRIFKOVIC:  Do you know how are the Suras arranged?

D'SOUZA:      They are. er. they are not arranged in any chronological
order. er. [pause] and. er. [pause] and so I quote in my book both the
violent and.

TRIFKOVIC:  Just tell me how ARE they arranged.

D'SOUZA:      The other point.

TRIFKOVIC:  Can you just tell me how are the Suras arranged?

D'SOUZA:      .right. You can't just call.

TRIFKOVIC:  Why don't you just tell me how are the Suras arranged?

HENNEN:       OK, one at a time here; your question for Dinesh, Serge,
is?

TRIFKOVIC:  In what order are the Suras arranged in the Kuran?

D'SOUZA:      [long silence] . I really don't know what you mean by
that. When you say "in what order" then. err. [pause] there.

TRIFKOVIC:  [.] They happen to be arranged by size, from short to long!
[sic!]

D'SOUZA:      [without interruption] And when did Iran.

By continuing blithely with his "points," rather than correcting my
assertion, Dinesh D'Souza merely confirmed urbi et orbi what had been
established beyond reasonable doubt in the course of our exchange: that
he has not read the Kuran and that he may never had one in his hands.

As it happens, the eccentric arrangement of the Muslim holy book - from
those endlessly long and often boring Medinan Suras like Al-Baqarah with
almost 300 verses, or Al-'Imran with 200, to the shorter and more
interesting Meccan ones - is the Kuran's most salient feature. It is its
one feature that is bound to be noticed and remembered by any modestly
observant and not necessarily astute layman.

That this key feature of the book is unknown to an author who claims to
have spent four years studying it is indicative either of his tenuous
hold on reality, or of his excessively creative imagination. Either way,
the gall necessary for such a person to aspire to authoritative
statements on Islam defies belief. Grotesque images spring to mind:
Groucho spewing pronunciamientos on Dostoyevsky, Yogi Berra on quantum
physics, Maya Angelou on poetry.  The story would be farcical, were it
not for the seriousness of the subject.

D'Souza's particular statement in our debate that prompted my impromptu
Kuran 101 test is worth quoting in extenso:

We can't win the War on Terror without driving a wedge between the
radical Muslims and the traditional Muslims. There are many Muslims who
are very different from the stereotypical Muslim that Serge and [Robert]
Spencer feature in their work. My point is simply this: ultimately I
think that we have to draw traditional Muslims away from radical Islam,
because the radical Muslims are fishing in the pool of traditional
Islam. So for this reason I think that these attacks on Islam - the
Koran is a gospel of violence, Mohammed is the inventor of terrorism -
they are not just tactically foolish, they are historically wrong
because Islam has been around for thirteen hundred years, Islam
radicalism was invented in the 1920s, and came to power in 1979. How can
we blame the Prophet Mohammad for things that Khomeini and Bin Laden are
saying, that are very new. Historian Bernard Lewis points out that
radical Islam is a radical break with traditional Islam. Never before
have Muslim mullahs, or clergymen, ever ruled a Muslim country. All
Muslim countries have been ruled by non-clergymen until Khomeini. So I
think the flaw we see in this work and in the Islamophobic literature is
that it tries to link the early centuries of Islam. It cherry-picks the
Koran and finds all the violent passages, leaves out all the peaceful
passages, and then basically concedes to Bin Laden that he is the true
Muslim, that his reading of the Koran is correct, and it pushes the
traditional Muslims towards the radical camp by denouncing their
religion. Then we complain all these traditional Muslims [indistinct] .
by denouncing Islam itself.


The claim that analyzing and exposing those aspects of orthodox Islamic
teaching that prompt bloodshed will drive "traditional" Muslims into the
radical camp is the exact moral and logical equivalent of the claim
often advanced during the Cold War by Moscow's apologists and
fellow-travelers that a vigorous and principled stand by the West in
defense of the Free World would be detrimental to the "moderates" in the
Kremlin and play right into the hands of the "hard-liners." Aside from
the logical absurdity of this line of reasoning, it is also
hypocritical: D'Souza's latest book does not allow for any possibility
of a cleverly driven conservative wedge between the "traditional" Left
and its self-hating, post-modern mutant offspring.





In his book and in our debate D'Souza made a clear point (however
objectionable) that Spencer and I must stop writing as we do, and that
"conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the
radical Muslims." Such demands, coupled with D'Souza's embrace of the
classic leftist slogan of "Islamophobia," go way beyond mere
disagreement; yet he dismisses as "paranoid" anyone who sees this as a
call for us to be silenced, or to be silent.





"How can we blame the Prophet Mohammad for things that Khomeini and Bin
Laden are saying," asks D'Souza, casually adopting a pious Muslim's
designation of Islam's founder. On this crucial issue of Islam's core
teaching, Robert Spencer responded by noting that both Khomeini and bin
Laden invoked Muhammad to justify their positions: D'Souza's
"traditional Muslims," as he himself acknowledges, have no theological
differences with the jihadists, and clearly they have mounted no
large-scale or effective response to the jihadists:





So we are supposed to ignore the fact that the jihadists use Muhammad,
instead of calling upon those "traditional Muslims" to formulate some
effective counter to this use - whether by rejecting the literal meaning
of Muhammad's words in some cases, or by some other means? Here again
D'Souza continues to repeat points that have no substance, all the while
robotically invoking Lewis like the homo unius libri that Hugh
Fitzgerald pointed out that he is. One would think an established
conservative such as D'Souza would recognize that sometimes the
conventional wisdom on a given topic is incorrect, and that the truth
can be found among those who are despised and vilified by the lemmings
of the mainstream.





When D'Souza asserts that "all Muslim countries have been ruled by
non-clergymen until Khomeini," continues Spencer, he is suggesting that
some form of separation of Mosque and State is dominant in Islamic
history, when just the opposite is the case: Islam does not accept any
separation of the sacred and the secular realms: "Here again, it is hard
to escape the impression that D'Souza either doesn't know the facts of
Islamic history and law, or actually wishes to give his audience a false
impression."





For a more lighthearted comment on the affair let us end with Hugh
Fitzgerald on JihadWatch, who says that from now on "anyone debating
Dinesh D'Souza should be sure to do exactly as Serge Trifkovic did":
simply ask D'Souza a question or two about the most obvious and
elementary of matters. In his view, D'Souza now has three choices: 1. Be
shown up for an ignoramus; 2. Be forced to study Islam, and perhaps
modify his views in the process; or 3. Never appear where anyone can
debate him about his knowledge of Islam:


I think Dinesh D'Souza will choose #3. #1 is something he obscurely
realizes he is, but like the mountebank hawking his wares at the County
Fair, he has assumed that no one will call him on his hollow claims. But
he can no longer assume that. #2 requires work. It requires study. It
requires thought. [.] #3 it will be. No more debates, for Dinesh
D'Souza, with anyone at all. But what if - for him, a hellish What If -
some of those interviewing him started to bone up on Islam, and asked
him questions? What if on Talk Shows there were callers who would call
up pretending that they were about to ask one thing, and then suddenly
asked D'Souza one or more of those questions, the ones he cannot answer,
to what should be his own great shame and chagrin? Then where would he
be?

And the same can be done at those appearances he solicits for "Corporate
Audiences" and "University Audiences," Fitzgerald continues, as it is
perfectly legitimate - it is hardly harassment - to simply ask him a few
questions to see what this self-minted and self-described "expert on
Islam" knows about the isnad-chain, or the work the muhaddithin, or
"naskh," or "fiqh," or "tafsir, " or "Jihad," or "dhimmi," or "Ahl
al-dhimma":

And say, just what did happen at the Khaybar Oasis? And who was Asma
bint Marwan? And who was little Aisha, and of what contemporary
relevance is her story? And who can issue a fatwa, and what is the
difference between a fatwa and a rukh? And what is the Treaty of
Al-Hudaibiyya, and why does it matter? And who was Abu Bakr? Ali?
Hussein? And what does the phrase "al-masjid al-aksa" mean, and who
decided what that phrase must refer to?

But Fitzgerald has faith that no matter how hard Dinesh D'Souza starts
studying now, he simply won't be able to figure it all out - not given
the list of his authorities, and certainly not given his mental
faculties on display at the best source of information about Dinesh
D'Souza: his own website, where the copy is written by - Dinesh D'Souza.
Don't miss it.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Srjda Trifkovic caught Dinesh D'Souza lying in a radio debate yesterday!
D'Souza has been claiming that Islam is not a hostile religion, and yet
Dr. Trifkovic's question revealed that D'Souza HASN'T EVEN READ the
Koran, as he claimed.

Such is the honesty of the defenders of Islam.  Please note that Mr.
D'Souza was forced a few years ago to retract passage of one of his
books, which were also knowingly dishonest, as documented here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003112.html

-----------------------------------------------

Excerpt:

TRIFKOVIC:  Have you ever actually read the Kuran?

D'SOUZA:    Of course I have.

TRIFKOVIC:  Do you know how are the Suras arranged?

D'SOUZA:    They are... er... they are not arranged in any
chronological order... er... [pause] and... er... [pause] and so I
quote in my book both the violent and...

TRIFKOVIC:  Just tell me how ARE they arranged.

D'SOUZA:    The other point...

TRIFKOVIC:  Can you just tell me how are the Suras arranged?

D'SOUZA:    ... right. You can't just call...

TRIFKOVIC:  Why don't you just tell me how are the Suras arranged?

HENNEN:             OK, one at a time here; your question for Dinesh,
Serge, is?

TRIFKOVIC:  In what order are the Suras arranged in the Kuran?

D'SOUZA:    [long silence] I really don't know what you mean by
that. When you say "in what order" then... err... [pause] there...

TRIFKOVIC:  ... an interlocutor who tries to pass authoritative
judgments on the subject is refusing to tell me how are the Suras and
the verses of the Kuran arranged. They happen to be arranged by SIZE,
from short to long!

[The interview goes on for another 10 minutes or so]

"Hot Talk with Scott Hennen" http://www.wday.com/hottalk/
Debate Trifkovic - D'Souza
Live, Monday, March 5, 2007, 11:07 CST (Partial verbatim transcript)

[...]

TRIFKOVIC:  The problem with his book is primarily that Dinesh
denounces me and my friend Robert Spencer for writing about Islam the
way we do. What is truly remarkable for an intellectual is that he
does not do so on the basis of any failure on our part to offer
empirical evidence for our fundamental thesis - which is that Islam
is inherently aggressive, racist, violent, and intolerant - but
rather that this shouldn't be allowed to be published, because it
undermines the possibility of establishing some mythical alliance
with the conservative Muslims. The problem there is that a
conservative Muslim is obviously a person inherently opposed to any
rationalistic revision of the Kuran or the Sunna, or any
reinterpretation of Islam in the way that would enable it to be
reformed. What we have is a self-proclaimed "conservative," here in
the United States, acting in exactly the same way as... that reminds
me of my youth under communism in Tito's Yugoslavia, denouncing a
certain approach to a subject purely on the grounds of its alleged
ideological unacceptability. He uses the term "Islamophobia" - which
is a classic term invented by the Race Relations Industry, by the
very people of the Left that he seeks to denounce. Once you subscribe
to the term "Islamophobia" all debates about Islam cease, because the
only valid definition of "Islamophobia" is the one offered by those
people he blames for 9-11!

D'SOUZA:    One of the problems here is a little bit of paranoia.
These guys, Spencer, Serge, have been running around basically saying
I am trying to silence them, whereas all I am doing is disagreeing
with them. In my book I say this: we can't win the War on Terror
without driving a wedge between the radical Muslims and the
traditional Muslims... There are many Muslims who are very different
from the stereotypical Muslim that Serge and Spencer feature in their
work. My point is simply this: ultimately I think that we have to
draw traditional Muslims away from radical Islam, because the radical
Muslims are fishing in the pool of traditional Islam. So for this
reason I think that these attacks on Islam - the Koran [sic!] is a
gospel of violence, Mohammed [sic!] is the inventor of terrorism -
they are not just tactically foolish, they are historically wrong
because Islam has been around for thirteen hundred years, Islam
radicalism was invented in the 1920s, and came to power in 1979. How
can we blame the Prophet Mohammad for things that Khomeini and Bin
Laden are saying, that are very new. Historian Bernard Lewis points
out that radical Islam is a radical break with traditional Islam.
Never before have Muslim mullahs, or clergymen, ever ruled a Muslim
country. All Muslim countries have been ruled by non-clergymen until
Khomeini. So I think the flaw we see in this work and in the
Islamophobic literature is that it tries to link the early centuries
of Islam. It cherry-picks the Koran and finds all the violent
passages, leaves out all the peaceful passages, and then basically
concedes to Bin Laden that he is the true Muslim, that his reading of
the Koran is correct, and it pushes the traditional Muslims towards
the radical camp by denouncing their religion. Then we complain all
these traditional Muslims [indistinct] ... by denouncing Islam itself.

TRIFKOVIC:  This is really rich. First of all, to claim that the
Kuran is a pacifist tract...

D'SOUZA:    I didn't say it's a pacifist tract.

TRIFKOVIC:  Well, you do say that people like Spencer and I pick
and choose. Have you actually read the Kuran? Have you ever actually
read the Kuran?

D'SOUZA:    Of course I have.

TRIFKOVIC:  Do you know how are the Suras arranged?

D'SOUZA:    They are... er... they are not arranged in any
chronological order... er... [pause] and... er... [pause] and so I
quote in my book both the violent and...

TRIFKOVIC:  Just tell me how ARE they arranged.

D'SOUZA:    The other point...

TRIFKOVIC:  Can you just tell me how are the Suras arranged?

D'SOUZA:    ... right. You can't just call...

TRIFKOVIC:  Why don't you just tell me how are the Suras arranged?

HENNEN:             OK, one at a time here; your question for Dinesh,
Serge, is?

TRIFKOVIC:  In what order are the Suras arranged in the Kuran?

D'SOUZA:    [long silence] I really don't know what you mean by
that. When you say "in what order" then... err... [pause] there...

TRIFKOVIC:  ... an interlocutor who tries to pass authoritative
judgments on the subject is refusing to tell me how are the Suras and
the verses of the Kuran arranged. They happen to be arranged by SIZE,
from short to long!

[The interview goes on for another 10 minutes or so]




Dr. S. Trifkovic, Foreign Affairs Editor
CHRONICLES: A Magazine of American Culture
928 N Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103
www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi
www.trifkovic.mysite.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BNP IMMIGRATION BULLETIN
JANUARY 22, 2007


British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk




1.  RUSSIA EXPELLING FOREIGN LABOUR

Our congratulations to the government of Vladimir Putin, who is putting
the Russian people first by expelling the hordes of foreign labour,
riddled with criminals and Islamic terrorists, who have taken jobs and
depressed wages in Russia.  Russia is still desperately poor, by Western
standards, and struggling to recover from the economic collapse brought
about by the capitalist extremism that followed communism.

http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20070123-
122536-3314r

Thousands of migrant workers from the Caucasus, Central Asia and China
are leaving Russia as the government institutes tough new measures aimed
at cracking down on illegal immigration.
Campaigners against illegal immigration are welcoming the measures,
saying low-paid migrants were distorting the job market and taking work
from Russian citizens. But critics say the moves are ill-advised because
they will drive up retail prices and create a labor shortage that could
hurt Russia's booming economy.
About 12 million people, mostly citizens of impoverished ex-Soviet
republics who do not require a visa to enter the country, are currently
working illegally in Russia, according to analysts.
The new rules set the quota for legal foreign workers at 6 million,
while at same time imposing fines of up to $30,000 on companies that
employ foreigners illegally. Also, as of this month, only 40 percent of
workers in Russia's retail markets are allowed to be foreigners, and
none should be by April 1.

Foreign workers have traditionally dominated in Russia's retail markets,
with people from Azerbaijan, for example, selling fruits and vegetables,
and Chinese selling cheap manufactured goods. Illegal migrants, mostly
from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, are also heavily employed as laborers in
the construction industry.

'We aren't wanted anymore, so I guess we'll be going home,' said Artak,
an Armenian who sells cigarettes and alcohol at a kiosk in central
Moscow. 'I'll be surprised if they can find a Russian who is willing do
this work all day for what they pay me.'

With illegal migrants difficult to track, it's not clear exactly how
many are leaving Russia. But Russian police have been out in force to
enforce the new laws, and signs are that few are taking the risk of
staying.

Many stalls at food markets across Moscow are empty as vendors leave the
country. Some markets have closed altogether, while others have posted
signs looking for vendors with Russian citizenship. Russian television
has shown images of empty markets in the Far East, where Chinese
stallholders have fled across the border.

A Russian union organizer who works with illegal migrants in the
construction industry said companies are throwing thousands of workers
off job sites in fear of being prosecuted.

'You used to be able to get off the plane and immediately find work. Now
everyone wants to get back on planes to go home,' said the organizer,
who did not want his name used because he worries that he'll be targeted
by authorities.

The new measures appear to be a response to a surge in ethnic
nationalism and opposition to immigration that has occasionally erupted
in violence. In August, a bomb tore through Moscow's Cherkizovsky
market, killing 13 persons, mostly illegal workers from Central Asia.

Racist attacks have grown dramatically, with at least 53 persons killed
last year in racially motivated assaults, according to the human rights
group Sova.

Last fall, President Vladimir Putin denounced 'ethnic gangs' that
control Russia's markets and called for regulation to protect 'the
native Russian population.'

Alexander Belov, the head of the influential Movement Against Illegal
Immigration, welcomed the new rules as 'a step in the right direction.'
But he said Russia needs to go further and impose full visa requirements
on 'people from poor countries who take jobs from Russians and give
nothing back to our society.'

Russia's population is shrinking by 750,000 people a year and has fallen
below 142 million due to low birth rates and high mortality rates,
especially among working-age men. There are fears the new measures could
lead to an economic slowdown if foreign workers cannot be replaced.

'Most of the migrants working in Russia are doing jobs Russian citizens
don't want,' said Svetlana Gannushkina, the head of the Migration and
Law Network, which assists immigrants.

She said the measures are little more than a populist move ahead of
elections to the State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, later
this year. This could backfire, she added, because the crackdown may
also drive up costs in retail markets, hurting Russia's poor.

The average Russian earns only about $5,000 a year, and low-income
Russians do most of their shopping in retail markets. 'This is going to
damage not only migrant workers but also all the people who won't be
able to afford to pay more for fruits, vegetables and meat,' she said.

The government appears to be hedging its bets promising that prices will
not rise and that the April 1 deadline for foreigners to be banned from
markets could be extended.

'The laws are aimed at regulating the normal functioning of markets and
not at reducing the quantity of goods traded,' Economic Development
Minister German Gref said in televised comments. 'If we see any threat,
the time limit can be extended by a government decision.'






2. CONSULTANTS FAKE VISA APPLICATIONS FOR INDIANS

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Ahmedabad/Consultants_fake_pap
ers_for_visa-seekers/articleshow/1259577.cms

Don't earn enough? Then just fake it. All those desperate to get a visa,
but fall short of requirements now make a beeline to unscrupulous
consultants ready to fake papers for a fee.

Fraudsters in the form of chartered accountants, private companies and
immigration consultants are conjuring up fake pay slips and income tax
returns to get you points on the visa chart.

Even if you do not earn a single paisa, it will cost you just Rs 50,000
to show visa authorities an annual income of Rs 5 lakh.

Neeta Parmar (name changed) almost lost her chance of studying in the
US, when her father faked tax returns on an income of over Rs 20 lakh.

Her visa was rejected. "She later obtained a bank loan, apologised to
the US immigration department in writing, then obtained a visa," says
her consultant, advocate Sudhir Shah. Visas such as UK's Highly Skilled
Migrant Programme (HSMP) and US's Student Visa require a certain number
of points for eligibility.

Under HSMP, for example, it takes 75 points to get you a visa, the
criteria for points being age, educational qualifications and annual
income.

If you are a PhD under 27 years of age (both get you maximum points
under respective criteria), you score 70 points.

For the remaining points, you need a minimum income £ 3,000 (around Rs
2.58 lakh). "Not many are PhDs or under 27 years.

It's easier to fake your income to get the remaining points," says UK
immigration consultant Sandeep Jani. That's exactly what happened when
this correspondent went as a desperate HSMP aspirant to a top consultant
— a chartered accountant — on CG Road.

A bachelor's degree and 28 years of age totalled only 40 points. To get
the remaining 35 points, an income of Rs 5.4 lakh became essential. Can
be done, said our man.

"I can create your presence on the payroll of a company, get you a pay
slip for Rs 5.4 lakh and even file your tax returns," he said.

I-T returns and pay slip are the two most important pieces of evidence
given to the immigration department. His charges: Rs 1.5 lakh plus Rs
50,000 extra "for finding an 'employer".

"That isn't too difficult," he added, "there are several companies who
need to 'adjust' their taxes at this time of the year."

This consultant's modus operandi entailed paying actual tax on the fake
income. "That way it's foolproof," he said.

However, there are consultants who can manage to waive that too for some
more money. Frauds of this kind prompted the UK immigration department
to change its rules last month for HSMP. The objective: "To ensure
greater transparency".

"Rules that were unwritten so far are now on paper, such as, the use of
third party verification to cross-check documents," said UK immigration
consultant Prasanna Acharya.





3.  IMMIGRATION TERROR LIST FIASCO

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007030478,00.html

Foreign terrorists are free to enter Britain because immigration bosses
are banned from seeing an EU “wanted” list of suspects.

Top cops have told MPs national security is at risk because of the
loophole.

Only 15 EU countries have access to the Schengen Information System,
which has a database holding 15million entries, including terrorists.

Suspects who show up on the computer can be detained or turned away in
France, Germany, Spain or Italy. But there is no way British officials
can check on the database.

The UK was blocked from using it after failing to fully join the scheme
at its 1995 launch.

The security lapse emerged after the Home Office failed to log names of
27,000 Britons convicted abroad on police computers.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: “There is no reason why we can’t
cooperate with our allies and have this information.”

Last night the Home Office said talks were “ongoing”. A spokesman added:
“The issue is being considered as part of a review of Criminal Records
Bureau checks.

“It will form part of the inquiry into the cases of Britons convicted
abroad.”






4.  CANARY ISLANDS A BACK DOOR INTO BRITAIN

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/20/ncanary1
20.xml

Illegal immigrants heading for Europe via the Canary Islands pose a
"potential threat" to the UK, according to an internal Home Office memo.

More than 30,000 people completed the often-deadly boat journey to the
Spanish territories from Africa last year, despite increased EU patrols,
in a bid to get to mainland Spain.

But the briefing paper suggests more are coming from English-speaking
nations and so could head for the UK.

advertisement
And it warns that unless the routes are closed down they may start to be
exploited by organised criminals such as people traffickers.

It says: "Notwithstanding that the short term impact on the UK is likely
to be minimal there are developments which are of concern from the UK's
point of view and which may pose a potential threat in the medium to
long term.

"The nationality profile of the irregular migrants arriving in the
Canary Islands is starting to change. As the routes have been displaced
southwards they are becoming much more accessible geographically to the
Anglophone countries in the region - Gambia, Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia - whose populations do have much closer links to the
UK and to varying degrees are traditional source countries for irregular
migration to the UK.

"In addition this route is much more affordable and quicker than the
alternative air or Libya/Italy routes. Indeed increasing numbers of
Gambians have already been seen arriving in the Canaries, though the
recent co-operation agreement between Spain and Gambia has resulted in
many of them being repatriated."

The paper, obtained by the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act,
also warns that the recent arrival of Sri Lankan and Pakistani nationals
indicates that traffickers from further afield are also exploring this
route.

"Both countries are of course significant sources of irregular migrants
coming to the UK.

"Earlier this year there was a spate of incidents involving Chinese
nationals using the Canaries as an air transit point to access the UK."

The Home Office said the Government was committed to preventing illegal
immigration into the UK and the European Union.

But the Refugee Council said a "significant proportion" of those risking
their lives to make the crossing were genuinely fleeing war and famine.






5.  SCOTLAND BEING FLOODED WITH ECONOMIC MIGRANTS

http://www.sundayherald.com/business/businessnews/display.var.1136957.0.
largest_increase_in_economic_migrants_in_a_decade_as_40_000_register_for
_work.php

The number of migrant workers registered for work in Scotland has risen
dramatically in the past two years, with more than three-quarters of the
increase coming from the European accession countries.

An analysis by labour research consultancy Slims shows that there were
morethan40,000migrantworkers registered for National Insurance, a rise
from 15,000 two years earlier.

The figures do not include those working in the "black economy" who have
not registered to pay National Insurance, but they do include students
at Scottish universities and colleges. Once they have registered for
work, migrant workers can move on to other parts of the UK or outside
the UK so the registration numbers are only a snapshot of what is
happening in the labour market.

continued...

The influx of new workers and their families has helped to reverse
Scotland's population decline; 2004 and 2005 saw the first substantial
increase in the country's total population for many years. But Slims, an
independent consultancy funded largely by public sector bodies, warns
that the 2004 level of immigration is not sustainable in the longer
term.

The report concludes: "In other words, the economy is unlikely to be
able to create enough jobs to employ both the new arrivals as well as
the existing population if immigration were to be maintained at 2004
levels for a decade or so."

Nigel Guy, the manager of Slims, said: "The number of migrant workers
will mean problems for specific sectors in particular areas such as the
hospitality industry. It means that some indigenous workers may not be
able to get into the jobs market. These are issues which policy makers
may have to address. But over the longer term it's good for industry
overall, and overall I'm sure it's good for the economy."

However, the research shows that, contrary to some suggestions, Scotland
actually has a smaller proportion of new migrants than the UK as a
whole. Just 6% of National Insurance registrations have been in
Scotland, whereas the country represents 8.25% of the UK's total
population.

The Slims report says: "It is little more than two years since the
expansion of the EU produced the most rapid influx of migrant workers
seen in the UK for many decades. From January 2007 the EU grew yet again
with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria."

The Slims report says it is hard to draw longer-term conclusions on the
effect of migrant workers on the Scottish economy, but it suggests: "A
gradual decline in the level of immigration from the A8 countries the
eight eastern European nations that joined the EU in 2004 is perhaps the
most likely scenario over the next few years. But it may be that the
number of newcomers to the job market in Scotland stabilises at a higher
level than it was before 2004."

The figures show that the migrant workers are unevenly spread across the
country: the biggest numbers of National Insurance (NI) registrations
are in Glasgow and Edinburgh; while per head of population the biggest
proportion is in Aberdeen and the Highlands. Despite some perceptions,
Glasgow has attracted little more than the average for the rest of the
country.

But while migrant workers from the eight accession countries are more
evenly spread, NI registrants from the rest of the world are
predominantly found in Scotland's four major cities.

The report says: "The total number of NI registrations as a proportion
of the workforce is small. Arrivals from anywhere outside the UK has
amounted to 1% of the workforce in each of the past two years. A8
arrivals have accounted for less than half of this total.

"However, since immigrants are unevenly spread across the occupations,
they have a much more substantial impact on some sectors of the economy,
such as hospitality and agriculture."

Almost half of the migrant workers from the eight accession countries
work in agriculture and hospitality. The report shows that one in eight
takes jobs in food-processing, while a further 15% work in what the
report describes as administration and business services, mainly
recruitment agencies.





6.  ISLAM'S HISTORY OF FORCIBLE IMMIGRATON

Here's an article from India that makes an important point: immigration
is a weapon of conquest, and Islam has a long record of this.

http://desicritics.org/2007/01/17/070633.php

Whenever there are terrorist attacks against west, there is a tendency
in the Muslim world to interpret that these attacks against western
societies as a natural backlash of the colonization of the Islamic world
by Europeans for almost two centuries. I was reminded of this argument
again, when I recently watched the video of the discussion of the noted
secular Muslim activist Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeera TV where an Egyptian
Muslim cleric presenting this claim asking her, who colonized whom,
whether UK colonized Egypt or Egypt colonized UK.

European colonization began with the discovery of America by Christopher
Columbus in CE 1492 and this was a unique historical event with
political, cultural, military and religious aspects that lasted for half
a millennium and the consequences of this well discussed and much
written chapter of history continues to produce more and more related
discussions and of course, will cause more and more related events in
the future as well.

European colonization had been in two different ways, one that happened
in Americas and in Australia, where the indigenous population was
systematically oppressed and were forced to flee from their own land and
the Europeans migrating to theses lands. This was the
transculturalization of a region wherein the indigenous people of these
lands finally lost their existence and the United States and Canada and
even the geographically east Australia and New Zealand collectively
being known as being part of the western civilization, there was a
cultural destruction.

In the first case there were large scale immigration from Europe to
Americas and Australia and the ethnicity of the majority changed and
that was the reason why these continents are now regarded as being part
of the west. But indigenous masses of Latin-American don't claim that
they are part of the west, but express their identity whenever possible,
even as the evil of colonialism still hunts them. Any way western
colonialism could not make the natives a part of its own civilizations
or west had no such intention.

Another way was what happened in Africa and Asia where the indigenous
people were relatively not forced to flee their lands and there was no
large scale immigration from Europe to these two continents but the
Europeans just ruled over them so that the cultural and social identify
of the people of Africa and Asia were not much affected. These regions
continue to be part of the pre colonial civilizations to which they
actually belonged. This was the way that the Islamic world too had been
colonized by Europeans, there were only political and military effects
and the culture and religion of the so called Islamic world were
unchanged, there was relatively no cultural destruction.

The spread of Christianity in Europe too had its own cultural impacts,
but the people of Europe are not unaware or ashamed of their pre
Christian pagan past but they are proud of it. Admittedly, paganism in
Europe was heavily struck down by Christianity from the very day that
Emperor Constantine the great decriminalized that religion in his
portion of the empire in CE 313 and later in the entire Rome that he
reunified in CE 324, the empire that had been partitioned by Diocletian,
his predecessor.

Pagans were subject to strong persecution, pagan temples were either
destroyed or were converted to Christian churches, Pagan books and
literature were burned. The destruction of this European or classic
Paganism was imminent as the imposition of Christianity over Europe was
very rapid given its support from the successive rulers and was finished
by the time of Emperor Justinian-I. Historians may go ahead with their
debate on the intensity of the influence of paganism on Christianity, as
argued by Edward Gibbon, but the destruction of European paganism as a
religion and a culture was almost total.

Europe, where Christianity flourished, was the seat of two other
prominent civilizations, Greek and Roman. The Greeks embraced
Christianity, but only as another religion, they haven't lost their
logistic, cultural and civilization identity and they find esteem
dignity in the civilization that existed before the introduction of
Christianity.

The Roman civilization may no longer be there as it had been known as it
has now been divided into different cultures like Spanish, Italian and
Portuguese. This was a natural process as Latin as a language began
dying and new languages derived from Latin. Modern people of these
cultures find no reason to be ashamed of the that much celebrated pre
Christian pagan Roman civilization to which they once belonged.

The justification that many Muslim intellectuals find for Islamic terror
is that it is a result of the long political oppression of the Islamic
world by the west in the colonial period and they allege the west of
being egotist ethically, culturally and intellectually. But not only
Muslim society was the victim of western colonialism, so were the Hindu
(Indian), African and scenic (indo-china) societies. None of these
societies have produced terrorism and the contemporary rise of Hindu
nationalism in India can not be viewed as a product of western hegemony.

When the term Islamic world is used, one has to be aware of the fact
that the so called Islamic world is because of an Islamic colonialism,
stronger and powerful than that of the west. A careful analysis will
conclude that Islam was the greatest colonizer of all time and the most
egotist ideology ever known to humanity.

This is where we need to look back on the spread of Islam. Islam spread
to all the territories that it conquered. Not only did the indigenous
population of these conquered countries embrace Islam for one reason or
another, but the cultural, social and intellectual aspects of these
lands were subject to a concrete transformation without immigration.
Finally these civilizations became extinct and became known as part of
the Islamic civilization even while the ethnicity of the people of these
lands did not change.

The shores of all the rivers referred to as the cradles of civilization
,except the Huang-He-Yangtze in China which was not subject to Muslim
conquest, the Tigris-Euphrates in modern day Iraq, the Nile in Africa,
the Indus in the Indian subcontinent have all lost their connection to
their profound inheritance. The Muslim masses on the banks of these
rivers are either unaware or ashamed of their great pre Islamic
heritage.

What happened with Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and Egypt was even worse -
that Arabic, the language of Islam, was forced upon them and that these
regions lost even their languages, Egyptian in the case of Egypt and
Sumerian in the case of Mesopotamia. Even in this case, the Indus valley
or the modern Pakistan is only a partial exception, as Urdu which was
not the tongue of the land but one that was born out of Islamic conquest
is the official language. This was a cultural holocaust.

The most notable point here is that, the invaded masses who embraced
Islam are totally in the dark about their pre-Islamic heritage and are
ashamed of the same, which did not happen with the people colonized by
the west. At least as far as the non Arabs conquered by Islam are
concerned, for them Islam was not just a submission to Allah, it was a
submission to Arab language, Arab culture and Arab tradition and a
submission to fight for the Arab cause, Arab superiority and Arab
Imperialism. Whereas communities colonized by westerners defended this
conquest later, because of the unique colonial nature of Islam, people
conquered by Islam found a cause in being conquered and the conquered
joined the conqueror in fighting for this cause, triggering a chain
reaction of Muslim conquests.

No colonized people glorify and iconize invaders or alien rulers as
their heroes but Muslims do. We can not imagine Native Americans
glorifying Columbus or Indians of the subcontinent glorifying the
British or Russians or Ukrainians glorifying Genghis Khan. The best
example of this peculiar psyche would be that of Invaders like Mahmud of
Ghazni and Muhammed Ghuri who attacked the people of the Indus valley.

Even though they looted their properties, massacred their forefathers,
gang raped their foremothers and enslaved them, they are the heroes of
Pakistan and its people. Finally, this glorification and iconization
turned so ridiculous where Pakistan naming one of its missiles after
Muhammed Ghuri and Afghanistan opposing this saying that Pakistan has no
claim over Afghan heroes and that only peaceful concerns may be named
after them!

That the invaders glorify the invasion is understandable, but here, in
the case of Islam, both the invader and the invaded glorify these bloody
invasions. Western colonialists did try to brainwash the natives through
the education system that they introduced, but even this kind of attempt
was not very effective

Islam as an Identity of the invader was so potent that it has been able
to brainwash and indoctrinate the indigenous people to that extent that
they find pride in being invaded. This indoctrination was clever enough
to cleanse out all these people had in their memories about their past,
so that for them their history and civilization began only with this
invasion.

Along with the western factor, Islam too has been a threat to the
social, cultural, linguistic and religious identities of the colonized
societies. But the hands and arms of Islam have even been mightier than
that of the west, as far as the indigenous people of the lands invaded
by Islam, from Morocco to Pakistan to Indonesia are concerned, and they
consider themselves to be a part of the Islamic world. The people of the
territories ruled by west are not treated, or they don't treat
themselves as being a part of the western world.

Islamic colonialism was so horrendous and destructive when compared to
the characteristics of western colonialism, as it was not only something
political or militarily but something more influential, cultural,
religious and psychological too. To be more exact, even the one fifth of
the humanity which identifies itself as Muslims is a product of this
ultra-colonial nature of Islam.

The ethical, cultural and intellectual egotism of the west may be a
fact, but such egotism and hegemony are even deeper for Islam. This has
always been apparent in its intolerant nature towards other cultures and
religions; the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas is a recent example.
This will be apparent again, if Islam becomes more powerful than the
west, politically or militarily.
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BNP IMMIGRATION BULLETIN
JANUARY 15, 2007

BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY
www.bnp.org.uk





1. TESCO SNUBS BRITISH JOBSEEKERS FOR POLES

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&ca
tegory=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED10%20Jan%202007%20
12%3A19%3A42%3A533

Jobseekers wanting to work at a city Tesco store have reacted angrily at
claims by the supermarket it was forced to recruit from Poland because
it could not fill the positions locally.

As previously reported by the Evening News, bosses from the Blue Boar
Lane branch in Sprowston staged a recruitment fair in Poland after being
unable to find staff in the city and five per cent of the 650 staff at
the store are now Polish.

But people desperately looking for jobs in the city have contacted us
claiming that they had applied to Tesco for work, only to be told there
were no vacancies available.

Walter Green, of Plantsman Close in Norwich, said he went to the
customer service desk at the Blue Boar Lane store several times last
year and was told there were no jobs.

The 70-year-old, a trained carpenter who lives with his wife Elizabeth,
68, said: ‘I applied for any job going but as they said there were no
jobs I never got as far as filling in an application form.

‘I wanted some extra money to help tide me and my wife over because the
pension here is not exactly great.

‘I was just looking for a part-time job and I would have been prepared
to do anything. I would have helped stack shelves.’

Stephen Ling, 57, of St Mildreds Road, West Earlham, filled in an
application in autumn last year to work in any position in the store.

‘They replied saying they had no vacancies to suit me,’ he said.

Mr Ling is a trained butcher and has a temporary job on a chicken farm
which is about to come to an end.

‘I feel a bit peeved. I've got nothing against the Polish, but it's the
fact the management said the local people don't want the jobs when we
do,’ he said.

Elaine Berks, of Gertrude Road, Norwich, said: ‘My son and I have both
tried to get employment with the Blue Boar Lane branch and failed. What
do they want - brain surgeons? It's rubbish that they can't get suitable
employees here.’

Antony Preston, who lives off Aylsham Road in Norwich, said: ‘I have
been phoning the store and calling in and I don't think the Polish
people did so why aren't they taking me on? I am really angry.’

Tesco owns 107 stores in Poland and employs more than 20,000 people
there.

The UK has seen increasing numbers of Polish migrant workers ever since
the country entered the EU three years ago.

A Tesco spokesman said: ‘Without exception we try to employ locally
first. That people were looking for work does not necessarily mean Tesco
was recruiting at the same time.

‘It's great we've so much interest for work.

‘For store jobs it's always a good idea to keep an eye out there first.’

The spokesman added: ‘We would be delighted to receive local interest in
the future when positions become available.’

Ü What do you think about migrant workers? Write to Evening News
Letters, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE, e-mail evening

newsletters@...




2.  NORFOLK POLICE LET OFF VANDALS BECAUSE THEY'RE FOREIGN

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2534997,00.html

TWO criminals caught on CCTV vandalising cars were not prosecuted
because police said they were unemployed foreigners and to bring them to
justice would cost too much.

One victim received a letter from Norfolk police saying the pair would
not be prosecuted because they were both foreign nationals with no jobs
and no income and the case was ‘not in the public interest to pursue due
to the expenses incurred in having a trial’.

The disclosure was greeted as a further example of police forces’
excessive pandering to criminals. This weekend Derbyshire police were
criticised for refusing to release pictures of two escaped murderers
because to do so might have infringed their human rights.

The latest case involved the vandalism of at least five cars in Norwich.
Two men, aged 19 and 29, were arrested on suspicion of damaging cars but
a Norfolk police spokeswoman said that after ‘careful consideration of
all the evidence’ it was decided to deal with the offenders by way of a
police caution.

Barry Ferguson, 29, one of the victims of the vandals, who are in the
country legally, said he was dismayed by the decision. ‘Even though
these people were caught in the act they are getting away with wanton
vandalism,’ he said.

‘I can’t believe the police have spent all this money on CCTV and then
have not bothered to charge them.

‘There would be outrage if a British person got away with this but it is
being justified in this instance because these people are foreign with
no income. What is the point of having CCTV if these crimes are
ignored?’ The police spokeswoman said: ‘Any decision is tested against
the attorney-general’s guidelines. It has absolutely nothing to do with
their ethnicity or level of income.

‘This caution, whilst not a conviction, is added to their police record
and can be cited in court should they reoffend. The victims, if they
wish to do so, can pursue compensation through the civil courts.’

Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said: ‘It is
only right and proper that anyone who carries out any type of crime
should face the courts. Being jobless, foreign or anything else is no
excuse for letting people off.

‘The long and the short of it is that we are making excuses for not
dealing with those who commit crime.’










3. POLES LIVING IN ABANDONED FACTORY

http://www.wigantoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=66&ArticleID=19698
30


AN INVESTIGATION has been launched after Eastern European workers were
found
living in a disused Wigan paintworks factory.

We can reveal eight economic migrants, who have arrived here legally
from Poland
under EU rules to escape poverty in their native land, are being housed
in the
former Foscolor plant, off Bickershaw Lane, Bickershaw.

Wigan Council launched an investigation after inquiries by the Evening
Post and
claims by an angry neighbour that the building was being used for
accommodation.
Enforcement officers made an unannounced visit to the rural site
yesterday
(Thursday) and found evidence that the building was in residential,
rather than
industrial, use.

They are concerned about living conditions for the Polish workers, as
well as a
potential breach of planning regulations.

After talks between the council and Blakeley's Waste Management, which
also owns
the neighbouring Foscolor sites, the firm has now agreed to submit an
immediate
planning application for change of use in an attempt to authorise the
'hostel.'
Blakeley's boss Stephen Blakeley was said to be unavailable and no other
company
spokesman was available for comment.

The company receives up to 50 lorry loads of rubbish for recycling each
day but
the building concerned has not been used by the firm since around
October last
year.

Yesterday, a reporter and photographer from the Evening Post were
escorted off
the site and an attempt was made to stop us from taking photos of the
office
building which it is said is being used as a hostel.

We were told: 'This is a private road you are on - you can't take
photographs.'
There were no signs of occupation from the outside although the windows
were too
dirty to be able to see through clearly. However a single bulb could be
seen
alight inside the building.

The allegations came to light after Blakeley's applied for retrospective
permission for a new waste recycling building on the foundations of the
old
Junction Colliery buildings.

Metro senior planner Dennis McBride visited the Blakeley's plant less
than 100
yards away, in connection with the retrospective bid for a new plant.

He told planning committee councillors that he saw 'no sleeping bags or
obvious
signs' of workers living at the waste firm itself. But he had not at the
time
been able to check the Foscolor works nearby.

A spokesman for the council said: 'Two enforcement officers visited
Blakeley's
and accessed the building on Thursday.

'They found evidence that it appeared to be under residential occupation
by
eight persons, which means there has been a material change of use from
its
previously approved status.

'Blakeley's have been informed about the situation and have now agreed
to submit
an application seeking approval for the change of use.

'It would not be appropriate to comment on whether it would be
successful at
this stage.'

However, Greater Manchester Fire Service has confirmed that there is no
breach
of fire safety regulations, smoke alarms have been fitted and fire
escape route
notices posted in Polish.





4. EU PLANNING EUROPE-WIDE WORK PERMIT

http://euobserver.com/9/23226/?rk=1


A European Commission proposal for an EU green card scheme is to be
launched later this year, despite EU member states having different
rules and regulations in their labour markets.

The introduction of a US-style green card in the EU would give highly
skilled migrants easier access to the 27-member bloc.

'We are going to make a specific proposal for the admission of high
skilled workers. We foresee a green card,' a commission official told
Reuters.

'The green card would be valid in the 27 EU states, to be attractive,'
the official added.

The EU executive is to present the proposal for a directive on an EU
green card in the second half of 2007. The details are still being
hammered out.

But such a proposal could face resistance from EU member states, which
have previously fiercely opposed EU interference within their labour
markets.

Up to now Germany - which currently holds the rotating EU presidency
and which already has its own green card scheme - is one of the
countries that has spearheaded opposition to any cross-border policy on
legal migration, saying its labour market is a purely domestic matter.

To make an EU green card become a reality all EU countries would have
to agree on the scheme.

The systems of legal immigration differs from country to country in the
EU, with most allowing only limited new immigration except for family
reunification and work permits for people with specific skills and a
contract.

Even within the union, movement between some old and new member states
remains subject to restrictions.

The word 'green card' comes from the first version of the US resident
card which was printed on green paper and which gives the holder
permission to permanently reside and take employment in the US.

EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini has previously said that the
idea of a directive on the conditions of admission to the EU for highly
skilled workers -- including the possibility of an EU green card --
responds to an 'economic necessity'.

He said the US, Canada and Australia are able to attract talented
migrants while Europe continues to receive low-skilled or unskilled
labour.






5.  IMMIGRATION FUELS TRADE IN SEX SLAVES

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071965


VELESTA, Macedonia - Olga winced as she drew back the bandage on her
right breast, revealing an infected puncture wound that hadn’t healed
since a man bit her in a fit of sexual rage. But the wound, for which
the 19-year-old Moldovan lacked even basic medicine, is only a small
part of Olga’s daily agony. For more than a year she has been held as a
sex slave in this town in western Macedonia, where human trafficking
flourishes and young girls are forced to endure the sexual whims of
thousands of men.

Sitting in a brothel bedroom in Velesta, a town synonymous with forced
prostitution that police and experts consider one of the most dangerous
places in Europe, Olga said that her ‘owner’ would kill her for telling
a reporter about her state of captivity. But the cruel conditions under
which she is held, and her deteriorating mental and physical health,
compelled her to speak out.

Her head hung in shame, Olga’s dark brown eyes welled with tears. She
brushed back her long black hair, revealing a fair complexion flushed
with anger at her fate. ‘There is only one word for this,’ she said.
‘Slavery.’

Olga was interviewed secretly by MSNBC.com while she was held against
her will in a Macedonian brothel. An untreated bite wound on her breast
became infected.

Forced to have sex with as many as 10 men every day, Olga and other
women clandestinely interviewed by MSNBC.com as part of a four-month
investigation into the sex trade in Europe, insisted that their real
identities not be revealed.

Their fears are not unfounded. Those brave enough to seek help have been
savagely beaten — and sometimes killed — for trying to escape.

Flourishing sex trade
Olga is one small cog in a huge transnational industry, and Macedonia is
merely a way station on a path to bondage that begins in impoverished
Eastern Europe and the chaotic states that emerged from the collapse of
the Soviet Union, and stretches to Western Europe, the Middle East and
beyond.


In Europe alone, officials estimate that more than 200,000 women and
girls — one-quarter of all women trafficked globally — are smuggled out
of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics each year,
the bulk of whom end up working as enslaved prostitutes. Almost half are
transported to Western Europe. Roughly a quarter end up in the United
States. Human rights activists say the numbers do not tell the full
story, because most women remain silent rather than turn to frequently
corrupt authorities for help.

The rapid rise of this sex slave trade can be traced to the fall of the
Soviet Union, where borders once heavily guarded by the Red Army
suddenly became porous and Soviet republics and Eastern European
satellites once in the Kremlin’s grasp saw their industries and
subsidies collapse overnight. Millions of young women like Olga came of
age amid this economic misery. Their childhood fantasies of a better
life in the West soon became a human trafficker’s golden opportunity.

Nowhere is this trafficking worse than it is in Moldova, Olga’s home,
where experts estimate that since the fall of the Soviet Union between
200,000 and 400,000 women have been sold into prostitution — perhaps up
to 10 percent of the female population.

The numbers are staggering, but for Liuba Revenko of the International
Organization for Migration in Moldova the bondage of the country’s young
women has become routine. ‘Moldovans are a hybrid population of
Russians, Romanians, Jews, Ukrainians and Bulgarians,’ Revenko said.
‘That creates a special race of women that are beautiful and in demand.
They have no future. They are a good target for the traffickers.’


In Velesta, a town so small that the 120 Moldovan girls working as
prostitutes there make up a sizeable part of the population, the sex
slaves are rarely seen during the day. Kept under lock and key in the
back rooms of a dozen ‘kafane,’ or café-bars that double as brothels,
they are summoned by their owners when a customer arrives. Then the
girls, most in their late teens or early 20s, are paraded in skimpy
lingerie before clients who ‘pick us according to their tastes,’ said
Irina, a Moldovan who answered a want-ad to be a waitress in Italy, but
ended up trapped in a Balkans brothel instead of working in a restaurant
in southern Sicily.

Rural Moldovan women, lacking education and desperate to escape, are
easy targets, activists say. Sometimes the bondage is built around a
debt that is impossible to pay off. Other times, it is simply brutal
captivity. They end up servicing clients with the false hope of working
off a ‘debt’ to their owners, who continue to entice them with real jobs
in Europe.

The women’s tales of bondage are hauntingly similar. Olga, the Moldovan
with the breast wound, was virtually kidnapped when she played hooky
from school in rural Moldova. Initially, she was drawn to the prospect
of a new life in Italy — far away from her alcoholic mother and abusive
brother. But the next thing she knew, a Serb smuggler called ‘Dragan’
was pulling her out of a car trunk in the Romanian town of Timisoara, on
the border with Yugoslavia. Dragan and his Romanian pals loaded 10 girls
on a boat to cross the Danube. After a few days in a basement near
Belgrade, Olga was led across the Serbian frontier with Macedonia —
under the eyes of obliging border guards — and brought to Velesta.
‘There were clients on the very first night,’ she said.


What are the countries of the Balkans doing to curb the trade in women?

• Albania
• Bosnia
• Bulgaria
• Romania
• Yugoslavia

With no passport and little idea where she was, Olga was raped, beaten
into submission and humiliated until she no longer had the will to
challenge her horrible fate.

‘Meti made me clean the toilet with my tongue. It was horrible and
dirty. I think they did it because I was the newest girl,’ Olga said of
her ethnic Albanian owner. ‘He made me lick another girl’s … you know,
down there. And then he laughed.’

Young and beautiful, Olga has stayed in Velesta longer than most
trafficked women, many of whom are moved on into Albania and Greece
after the local population ‘breaks them in or gets tired of them,’ Olga
said. Once they reach the Albanian coast, they are easily trafficked to
Italy, where the European Union’s lax border controls allow them to be
smuggled deep inside the continent.

Ten years of wars in the Balkans have turned the region into a
trafficking highway paved with lawlessness and corruption that has
prompted former enemies — Bosnian Muslims, Serbs and ethnic Albanians —
to set aside ethnic rivalries in the name of vast profits. ‘You’re
talking about big international organizations,’ said Rudolf Perina, a
former U.S. ambassador to Moldova who was involved in Washington-funded
anti-trafficking efforts.

Ethnic Albanian rebels in Kosovo, Macedonia and south Serbia — long the
masters of drug running in the Balkans — are deeply involved in the
human smuggling business, using the flesh trade to fund their separatist
movements.

Luisa, a 32-year-old single Moldovan mother whose neighbor persuaded her
to accept a job in Italy and ‘marry a rich Roman,’ found herself
repeatedly raped by her ‘owner,’ Dilaver Bojku, an ethnic Albanian
trafficking kingpin from Velesta. European law enforcement officials say
Bojku, one of the sex trade’s ‘Most Wanted,’ has used cash and,
reportedly, contacts with ethnic Albanian rebels to avoid arrest for
years. ‘He bought me for $700,’ Luisa said.

She was freed in a police raid on Velesta, after MSNBC.com confronted
Macedonia’s interior minister, Ljube Boskovski, with tales of sex
slavery only a few hours’ drive from his office in the capital of
Skopje.

But Olga and other women who took great risk to speak about their
predicament were nowhere to be found.

The Macedonian SWAT team that raided bars called Coca Cola, Safari and
Bela Dona was only partly successful.

Tipped off to the raids, brothel owners had spirited girls out secret
exits in the backrooms of the bars and hidden them in the woods behind
the buildings. The sheets on the beds were still warm. With the
exception of a few minor pimps, the kingpins like Bojku escaped.


The raid on Velesta was the first by Macedonian police, long wary of
upsetting the uneasy peace between the country’s Macedonian Slavs and
ethnic Albanian minority.

Even Boskovski admitted his own policemen were on the smugglers’
payroll, making it virtually impossible to surprise the traffickers and
rescue their sex slaves. Boskovski also complained about a lack of laws
to keep traffickers behind bars. ‘The punishments are not really
severe,’ he said.

In an interview with MSNBC.com, Vitalie Curarari, the head of Moldova’s
anti-trafficking police, lashed out at the media for ‘sensationalizing’
sex slavery and placed much of the blame for trafficking on the women
themselves. ‘Fifty percent of our women just go abroad to find another
man and then come back to divorce their husbands,’ Curarari said.

Farther along the trafficking pipeline, hundreds of women and girls are
smuggled into Europe every day and forced onto the streets of cities
like Hamburg, Paris, London and Amsterdam.

Amsterdam, a city synonymous with hedonism, is perhaps best known for
its legalized sex industry, in which prostitutes pay taxes and undergo
regular health exams. The city’s Red Light District is a virtual
Disneyland of sex — with only European Union passport holders allowed to
ply the trade.

But only a few miles’ drive from the city center, traditional Dutch
tolerance is helping fuel the trafficking problem. In Theemsweg, a
fenced-in, football field-sized parking lot built by the government for
unregulated sex workers, girls sit in bus shelters — also courtesy of
the government — waiting for clients. There are no EU citizens here —
and the prostitutes’ countries of origin are strikingly familiar:
Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic. On
weekends, men looking for cheap sex wait in cars that back up for a
mile. Sexual encounters, which take place right in the cars, cost $20.

Asked how she got to Theemsweg, 20-year-old Anna from Russia’s Far East
said, ‘You don’t want to know.’ Dutch police officials, speaking
privately, estimate that as many as 70 percent of the prostitutes in the
Netherlands are working illegally, using false documents provided by
smugglers to skirt Dutch and European laws.

With the women facing poor odds, activists are working overtime to try
to thwart traffickers and rescue some of the thousands of sex slaves in
Europe. The International Organization for Migration, backed by U.S.
funding, has managed to return only 400 of the perhaps hundreds of
thousands of Moldovan women victimized by the sex trade. Activists are
beating a path to rural areas to educate young girls about the dangers
of the trade.

Twenty-one-year-old Natasha, a single mother, considers herself one of
the lucky ones. She escaped Velesta, where her clients included NATO
soldiers from Germany, France, Britain and the United States who were
stationed in Macedonia for peacekeeping duties.

It was an Albanian client who took pity on Natasha and bought her from
her owner for 5,000 Deutsche Marks, about $2,500. ‘Yes, I’m back in
Moldova, but it’s difficult,’ she said in a village three hours north of
the Moldovan capital, Chisinau. ‘We do not have money to buy bread. We
do not have money to pay for the electricity.’





6. MULTICULTURALISM UNDERMINES COMMUNITY – NOTED SCHOLAR

This article from the States describes how ethnic diversity destroys
trust between people – the necessary basis of a society that is both
organised and free.  Although matters in Britain are not yet as extreme
as in Los Angeles, California, we’re well on the way.

www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/cover.html

‘Multiculturalism doesn't make vibrant communities but defensive ones.
In the presence of diversity, we hunker down.
We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been
imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust
people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust
people who do look like us.’

-Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam

It was one of the more irony-laden incidents in the history of celebrity
social scientists. While in Sweden to receive a $50,000 academic prize
as political science professor of the year, Harvard's Robert D. Putnam,
a former Carter administration official who made his reputation writing
about the decline of social trust in America in his bestseller Bowling
Alone, confessed to Financial Times columnist John Lloyd that his latest
research discovery-that ethnic diversity decreases trust and
co-operation in communities-was so explosive that for the last half
decade he hadn't dared announce it 'until he could develop proposals to
compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it 'would have
been irresponsible to publish without that.'

In a column headlined 'Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic
diversity,' Lloyd summarized the results of the largest study ever of
'civic engagement,'
a survey of 26,200 people in 40 American communities: When the data were
adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more
people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the
loss of trust. 'They don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the
local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust
institutions,' said Prof Putnam. 'The only thing there's more of is
protest marches and TV watching.' Lloyd noted, 'Prof Putnam found trust
was lowest in Los Angeles, 'the most diverse human habitation in human
history.''

As if to prove his own point that diversity creates minefields of
mistrust, Putnam later protested to the Harvard Crimson that the
Financial Times essay left him feeling betrayed, calling it 'by two
degrees of magnitude, the worst experience I have ever had with the
media.' To Putnam's horror, hundreds of 'racists and anti-immigrant
activists' sent him e-mails congratulating him for finally coming clean
about his findings.

Lloyd stoutly stood by his reporting, and Putnam couldn't cite any
mistakes of fact, just a failure to accentuate the positive. It was
'almost criminal,' Putnam grumbled, that Lloyd had not sufficiently
emphasized the spin that he had spent five years concocting. Yet
considering the quality of Putnam's talking points that Lloyd did pass
on, perhaps the journalist was being merciful in not giving the
professor more rope with which to hang himself.

For example, Putnam's line-'What we shouldn't do is to say that they
[immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new
us'-sounds like a weak parody of Bertolt Brecht's parody of Communist
propaganda after the failed 1953 uprising against the East German puppet
regime: 'Would it not be easier for the government to dissolve the
people and elect another?'

Before Putnam hid his study away, his research had appeared on March 1,
2001 in a Los Angeles Times article entitled 'Love Thy Neighbor? Not in
L.A.' Reporter Peter Y. Hong recounted, 'Those who live in more
homogeneous places, such as New
Hampshire, Montana or Lewiston, Maine, do more with friends and are more
involved in community affairs or politics than residents of more
cosmopolitan areas, the study said.'

Putnam's discovery is hardly shocking to anyone who has tried to
organize a civic betterment project in a multi-ethnic neighborhood. My
wife and I lived for 12 years in Chicago's Uptown district, which claims
to be the most diverse two
square miles in America, with about 100 different languages being
spoken. She helped launch a neighborhood drive to repair the dilapidated
play lot across the street. To get Mayor Daley's administration to chip
in, we needed to raise matching funds and sign up volunteer laborers.

This kind of Robert D. Putnam-endorsed good citizenship proved difficult
in Uptown, however, precisely because of its remarkable diversity. The
most obvious stumbling block was that it's hard to talk neighbors into
donating money or time if they don't speak the same language as you.
Then there's the fundamental difficulty of making multiculturalism
work-namely, multiple cultures. Getting Koreans, Russians, Mexicans,
Nigerians, and Assyrians (Christian Iraqis) to agree on how to landscape
a park is harder than fostering consensus among people who all grew up
with the same mental picture of what a park should look like.

For example, Russian women like to sunbathe. But most of the immigrant
ladies from more southerly countries stick to the shade, since their
cultures discriminate in favor of fairer-skinned women. So do you plant
a lot of shade trees or not? The high crime rate didn't help either. The
affluent South Vietnamese merchants from the nearby Little Saigon
district showed scant enthusiasm for sending their small children to
play in a park that would also be used by large black kids from the
local public-housing project.

Exotic inter-immigrant hatreds also got in the way. The Eritreans and
Ethiopians are both slender, elegant-looking brown people with thin Arab

noses, who appear identical to undiscerning American eyes. But their
compatriots in the Horn of Africa were fighting a vicious war. Finally,
most of the immigrants, with the possible exception of the Eritreans,
came from countries where only a chump would trust neighbors he wasn't
related to, much less count on the government for an even break.

If the South Vietnamese, for example, had been less
clannish and more ready to sacrifice for the national good in 1964-75,
they wouldn't be so proficient at running family-owned restaurants on
Argyle Street today. But they might still have their own country.

In the end, boring old middle-class, English-speaking, native-born
Americans
(mostly white, but with some black-white couples) did the bulk of the
work. When the ordeal of organizing was over, everybody seemed to give
up on trying to bring Uptown together for civic improvement for the rest
of the decade. The importance of co-operativeness has fallen in and out
of intellectual fashion over the centuries.

An early advocate of the role of cohesion in history's cycles was the
14th-century Arab statesman and scholar Ibn Khaldun, who documented that

North African dynasties typically began as desert tribes poor in
everything
but what he termedasabiya or social solidarity. Their willingness to
sacrifice
for each other made them formidable in battle. But once they conquered a
civilized state along the coast, the inevitable growth in inequality
began to sap their asabiya, until after several generations their
growing fractiousness allowed another cohesive clan to emerge from the
desert and overthrow them.

Recently, Princeton biologist Peter Turchin has extended Ibn Khaldun's
analysis in a disquieting direction, pointing out that nothing generates
asabiya like having a common enemy. Turchin notes that powerful states
arise mostly on ethnic frontiers, where conflicts with very different
peoples persuade co-ethnics to overcome their minor differences and all
hang together, or assuredly they would
all hang separately.

Thus the German heartland remained divided up among numerous squabbling
principalities until 1870. Meanwhile, powerful German kingdoms emerged
on Prussia's border with the Balts and Slavs and Austria's border with
the Slavs and Magyars. Similarly, the 13 American colonies came together
by fighting first the French and Indians, then the British. In this
century, two world wars helped forge from the heavy immigration of 1890
to 1924 what Putnam calls the 'long civic generation' that reached its
peak in the 1940s and '50s.

Half a millennium after Ibn Khaldun, Alexis de Tocqueville famously
attributed
much of America's success to its 'forever forming associations. There
are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take
part, but others of a thousand different types-religious, moral,
serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very
minute. Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the
intellectual and moral associations in America.'

The transformation of economics into a technical rather than empirical
field discouraged hard thinking about co-operation. It was much simpler
to create mathematical models based on the assumption that rational
individual self-interest drove human behavior, even though that
perspective could hardly explain
such vast events as the First World War, that abattoir of asabiya. In
the 1990s, the importance of civil society was widely talked up as
crucial in transitioning post-Soviet states away from totalitarianism,
but the free-market economists' prescription of 'shock therapy'
prevailed disastrously in Russia, as gangsters looted the nations'
assets.

An important contribution to the scholarly revival came in
Francis Fukuyama's 1995 book Trust: The Social Virtues & the Creation of
Prosperity. Fukuyama raised the hot-potato issue that Americans,
Northwestern Europeans, and Japanese tend to work together well to
create huge corporations, while the companies of other advanced
countries, such as Italy and Taiwan, can seldom grow beyond family
firms. (As Luigi Barzini remarked in The Italians, only a fool would be
a minority shareholder in Sicily, so nobody is one.) Fukuyama prudently
ignored, though, the large swaths of the world that are low both in
trust and technology, such as Africa, Latin America, and the Middle
East.

As an economics major and libertarian fellow-traveler in the late
1970s, I assumed that individualism made America great. But a couple of
trips south of the border raised questions. Venturing onto a Buenos
Aires freeway in 1978, I discovered a carnival of rugged individualists.
Back home in Los Angeles, everybody drove between the lane-markers
painted on the pavement, but only about one in three Argentineans
followed that custom. Another third straddled the stripes, apparently
convinced that the idiots driving between the lines were unleashing
vehicular chaos. And the final third ignored the maricón lanes
altogether and drove wherever they wanted.

The next year, I was sitting on an Acapulco beach with some college
friends, trying to shoo away peddlers. When we tried to brush off one
especially persistent drug dealer by claiming we had no cash, he whipped
out his credit-card machine, which was impressively enterprising for the
1970s. That set me
thinking about why we Americans were luxuriating on the Mexicans' beach
instead of vice-versa. Clearly, the individual entrepreneurs pestering
us were at least as hardworking and ambitious as we were. Mexico's
economic shortcoming had to be its corrupt and feckless large
organizations. Mexicans didn't seem to team up well beyond family-scale.

In America, you don't need to belong to a family-based mafia for
protection because the state will enforce your contracts with some
degree of equality before the law. In Mexico, though, as former New York
Times correspondent Alan Riding wrote in his 1984 bestseller Distant
Neighbors: A Portrait of the Mexicans, 'Public life could be defined as
the abuse of power to achieve wealth and the abuse of wealth to achieve
power.'

Anyone outside the extended family is assumed to have predatory
intentions, which explains the famous warmth and solidarity of Mexican
families. 'Mexicans need few friends,' Riding observed, 'because they
have many relatives.' Mexico is a notoriously low-trust culture and a
notoriously unequal one. The great traveler Alexander von Humboldt
observed two centuries ago, in words that are arguably still true,
'Mexico is the country of inequality. Perhaps nowhere in the world is
there a more horrendous distribution of wealth, civilization,
cultivation of land, and population.'

Jorge G. Castañeda, Vicente Fox's first foreign minister, noted the
ethnic substratum of Mexico's disparities in 1995:

The business or intellectual elites of the nation tend to be white
(there are still exceptions, but they are becoming more scarce with the
years). By the 1980s, Mexico was once again a country of three nations:
the criollo minority of elites and the upper-middle class, living in
style and affluence; the huge, poor, mestizo majority; and the utterly
destitute minority of what in colonial times was called the Republic of
Indians.

Castañeda pointed out, 'These divisions partly explain why
Mexico is as violent and unruly, as surprising and unfathomable as it
has always prided itself on being. The pervasiveness of the violence was
obfuscated for years by the fact that much of it was generally directed
by the state and the elites against society and the masses, not the
other way around. The current rash of violence by society against the
state and elites is simply a retargeting.'

These deep-rooted Mexican attitudes largely account for why, in Putnam's
'Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey,' Los Angeles ended up
looking a lot like it did in the Oscar-winning movie 'Crash.' I once
asked a Hollywood agent why there
are so many brother acts among filmmakers these days, such as the Coens,
Wachowskis, Farrellys, and Wayans. 'Who else can you trust?' he
shrugged.

But what primarily drove down L.A.'s rating in Putnam's
130-question survey were the high levels of distrust displayed by
Hispanics. While no more than 12 percent of L.A.'s whites said they
trusted other races 'only a little or not at all,' 37 percent of L.A.'s
Latinos distrusted whites. And whites were the most reliable in Hispanic
eyes. Forty percent of Latinos doubted Asians, 43 percent distrusted
other Hispanics, and 54 percent were anxious about blacks. Some of this
white-Hispanic difference stems merely from Latinos' failure to tell
politically correct lies to the researchers about how much they trust
other races. Yet the L.A. survey results also reflect a very real and
deleterious lack of co-operativeness and social capital among Latinos.

As columnist Gregory Rodriguez stated in the L.A. Times: 'In Los
Angeles, home to more Mexicans than any other city in the U.S., there is
not one ethnic Mexican hospital, college, cemetery, or broad-based
charity.' Since they seldom self-organize beyond the extended family,
Los Angeles's millions of Mexican-Americans make strangely little
contribution to local civic and artistic life.


In late October, I pored over the 64-page Sunday Calendar section of the
L.A.
Times, which listed a thousand or more upcoming cultural events. I found
just seven that were clearly organized by Latinos. While it's a
journalistic cliché to describe Mexican-American neighborhoods as
'vibrant,' they aren't. Some of this lack of social capital is
class-related-Miami indeed has a vibrant Hispanic culture, but it's
anomalous because it attracts Latin America's affluent and educated. In
contrast, Los Angeles is a representative harbinger of America's future
because it imports peasants and laborers.

It's often assumed that low-trust societies can be fixed just by
everyone deciding to trust each other more. But that can only work if
people become not just more trusting but more trustworthy. Although most
Asian-Americans originate
in low-trust cultures centered around the family, they typically adapt
well to middle-class American life because their high degree of honesty
makes them dependable neighbors and co-workers. Hispanics in America, in
contrast, have a relatively high crime rate-while their imprisonment
rate is less than half that of blacks, it is 2.9 times worse than that
of whites and 13 times that of Asians. Alarmingly, the Latino crime rate
goes up after the immigrant generation, suggesting a troubling future.
While many American-born Hispanics assimilate into the middle class,
others descend into the gang-ridden underclass.

Further, the illegitimacy rate has reached 48 percent among Hispanics
(versus 25
percent among whites), and it's higher among Mexican-Americans born here
than among newcomers from Mexico. The problems caused by diversity can
be partly ameliorated, but the handful of techniques that actually work
generally appall liberal intellectuals, so we hear about them only when
they come under attack. Putnam points out one success story but draws an
unsophisticated lesson: 'I think we can do a lot to push change along
more rapidly. There was a lot of racial tension around the time of the
Vietnam War.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

IMMIGRATION BULLETIN
JANUARY 29, 2007



This past week has been dominated by news of the government's supposed
crackdown on immigration.  It is, of course, nothing of the kind, but
merely an exercise in posturing for Middle England plus a grab for more
power by the state.  ID cards are wholly unnecessary to stop illegal
immigration, IF the government is serious about stopping it.  And they
are wholly useless, if it is not serious.   Of course, they will come in
handy milking the taxpayer for even more money, and for imposing even
more of the petty authoritarianism that liberals hunger for.

Furthermore, don't forget that even IF the government is taken at its
word, and if these schemes manage to shut down illegal immigration, this
means nothing in a country where the government is continually pushing
to widen the door to LEGAL immigration as much as it can.   At best, all
they're doing is changing the paperwork status of people who have no
business being in this country at all.


1.  ID CARDS WON'T STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

http://www.politics.co.uk/issueoftheday/domestic-policy/civil-liberties/
identity-cards/no2id-id-cards-wont-stop-illegal-immigration-$464376$4643
23.htm

Anti-identity card campaigners NO2ID have condemned the new UK borders
bill as 'theatrical' and said it will not tackle illegal immigration.

The new bill will require all non-EEA foreigners resident in Britain to
apply for a biometric identity card and could be fined and deported if
they fail to.

General secretary Guy Herbert said the proposal was 'nasty and it's
stupid' and would deter 'talented foreigners who are earning and
spending money that keeps the Treasury afloat'.

'Will Roman Abramovich take kindly to reporting his whereabouts to the
authorities, or will that feel a little too much like home?” he asked.

National coordinator Phil Booth said: 'Clearly desperate to give the
appearance of being tough on illegal immigration, what this actually
amounts to is diverting another bit of the Home Office budget to build
the biometric bit of the ID database.'





2. ID CARDS FOR FOREIGNERS UNDER NEW RULES

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2567707,00.html

Foreigners from outside Europe who live in Britain will be forced to
carry identity cards or face a £1,000 fine and deportation in an attempt
to stamp out illegal immigration and organised crime, the Government
announced today.

The Government's new Borders Bill will compel all foreign nationals from
outside the European Economic Area (EEA) who live in Britain to carry a
'biometric immigration document' in a bid to clamp down on illegal
immigration and crime, Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, revealed.

The move has led to criticism from civil rights campaigners - but the
Government says it is vital to keep track of migration levels and stop
people disappearing into a criminal underworld.

The new Bill also provides a £100million package of measures to boost
border control.

These include the roll-out of a hi-tech computer system to every airport
worldwide to check the fingerprints of everyone attempting to get a visa
to enter the UK.

The database would be linked to the police national computer in the UK,
meaning anyone with a criminal conviction, or anyone who had previously
been deported from the UK, could not board their flight to re-enter
Britain.

All foreign airports and ports with flights to the UK will contain such
a database by January next year, with one third already having had it
installed.

The Bill will also allow for immigration officers to be given the power
of arrest for the first time, a new uniform, and the power to detain and
prosecute suspected organisers of people-trafficking.

It will also make the deportation of some foreign prisoners automatic
once their sentence ends - but prisoners will technically still be able
to hold up the move by logging a claim to remain under the Human Rights
Act.

Civil rights protesters immediately attacked the proposal for all UK
residents who are not members of the EEA - which is all EU member states
plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland - to be forced to
carry identity cards, containing their biometric data, with stiff
penalties for those who fail to.

Phil Booth, national co-ordinator of NO2ID, which campaigns against the
introduction of identity cards, described the move as 'a devastating
mistake,' while Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group
Liberty, said the cards could prove 'racially divisive' if they resulted
in immigration spot-checks on Britain's streets.

But Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, defended the move, saying. 'At
the moment, there are up to 60 different documents which someone can
show to prove their entitlement to be in Britain. That is much too
complicated.'

He added that the Government intended to 'increase the sanctions' for
businesses which break the rules and employ people illegally.

But he added: 'I think the very least I can do is make life easier for
those businesses by giving them a failsafe, easy method to check whether
people are here legally and whether they are who they say they are.'

The moves are a key part of the Home Office's attempts to get to grips
with the asylum and immigration system after David Roberts, head of
removals at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, last year told
a House of Commons committee that he did not have the 'faintest idea'
how many illegal immigrants there were in the UK. Some have put the
number at about 400,000.

Damian Green, the Conservative shadow immigration minister, said the
Home Office in its current form was incapable of making the immigration
system effective.

'This is the Government's sixth immigration Bill in 10 years. The
previous five have not worked, so there is no reason to believe that
John Reid's tough rhetoric will translate into effective action this
time,' he said.

The Bill will be debated in the Commons for the first time on February
5.





3.  BRITAIN’S NEW BORDER COPS REPORT FOR DUTY

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23383182-details/Britain's%20
new%20border%20cops%20report%20for%20duty/article.do

This is the new uniform that will be worn by Britain's border guards.

Ministers unveiled the immigration officers' outfit today as they set
out new powers to tackle illegals trying to enter the country.

Under legislation published in Parliament this morning, immigration
staff and police will be able to arrest company bosses caught
intentionally employing illegal migrants.

They will also be able to seize any cash in the possession of illicit
employees, or found at their workplace. The new legal armoury, which
will also include extra powers for tackling people smugglers and sex
traffickers, is intended by ministers to bolster the country's border
defences and address public concerns over illegal immigration.

As a sign of their enhanced powers, immigration staff will be put in
uniform for the first time. The outfits, which feature navy-blue
epaulettes, will be initially piloted at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted
airports and Poole port.







4.  LOOPHOLE WARNING OVER EXPULSION MOVES

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID
=1999834

Long awaited new laws making it easier to deport foreign criminals will
also allow them to delay their expulsion by lodging human rights claims,
it was revealed yesterday.

Home Office immigration proposals backtracked on a view expressed by
Prime Minister Tony Blair that offenders should be kicked out of Britain
'irrespective' of human rights concerns in their home countries.

Foreign prisoners will face automatic deportation if they have committed
a serious offence and been jailed for 12 months or more.

But the UK Borders Bill also set out a range of exceptions where the
Home Secretary would not be able to make a deportation order against
criminals, including:

* If their deportation would breach their rights under the European
Convention of Human Rights or the Refugee Convention

* Where an appeal against their conviction or sentence had begun or
'could be brought'

* If the offender was under 18 at the time of the crime.

At the height of the foreign prisoners scandal that led to the sacking
of former home secretary Charles Clarke, Mr Blair said there should be a
presumption of automatic deportation in the 'vast bulk' of foreign
national prisoner cases.
He told the Commons last May: 'Those people, in my view, should be
deported irrespective of any claim that they have that the country to
which they are going back may not be safe.'

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said foreign criminals who made human
rights claims or appeals would be held in detention under immigration
powers.
'We will keep people in detention until we have worked through these
obstacles,' he said.

But he went on: 'If someone is still going through the process of
appealing against the conviction we have got to get certainty of their
guilt before we begin deportation proceedings.'

Although the courts can free offenders detained under immigration
powers, Mr Byrne said the Government was currently winning most cases.
Yesterday's Bill also brings in a wide range of new powers for
immigration officers to crack down on human trafficking and other
organised crime, including wider, police-style powers of arrest.

The Bill sets out how foreign nationals already living in Britain will
be forced to apply for biometric immigration documents.

Failure to buy the ID could lead to a £1,000 fine or losing their right
to stay in Britain.

Mr Byrne confirmed he had looked at issuing an amnesty to illegal
immigrants, but had rejected the idea.

The deputy director-general of the Confederation of British Industry,
John Cridland said: 'It is only right that Government takes tough,
targeted action against the small minority of firms who persistently and
knowingly employ illegal immigrants.

'The proposed new identification document should help employers by
simplifying the current system of checks, which the Government itself
acknowledges makes things far too complicated for legitimate employers.'

The general secretary of the NO2ID campaign against identity cards, Guy
Herbert, branded the new Bill 'nasty and stupid'.

He said: 'In its haste to be seen 'doing something', the Government has
forgotten that most foreign visitors don't have to come here. Bully
tourists and you'll have fewer tourists.

'The City and the entertainment industries are full of talented
foreigners who are earning and spending money that keeps the Treasury
afloat – and the property market.

'Did anyone think to ask Madonna how she feels about being
fingerprinted? Will Roman Abramovich take kindly to reporting his
whereabouts to the authorities, or will that feel a little too much like
home?'

A Home Office spokesman said: 'The UK Borders Bill will give immigration
officers vital new powers to do their job better, to secure the border,
tackle the traffickers and shut down illegal working.'






5. U.K. Will Take Fingerprints From Non-European Workers

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a4NAdwGqoeJc&refer=u
k

All non-Europeans working in Britain will have their fingerprints taken
under government plans to stop illegal working.

Workers from outside the European Economic Area, which is made up of the
27 European Union countries plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, will
have to apply for a biometric immigration document or face having their
work visa removed. Employers found hiring illegal workers face fines of
1,000 pounds ($1,961).

The proposal is included in the Borders Bill, published today by Home
Secretary John Reid, whose department is under attack for failing to
keep track of foreign nationals living in Britain. Reid's predecessor
Charles Clarke was sacked in May after he said the Home Office had freed
1,023 foreign prisoners without considering first whether they should be
deported.

‘I was very struck by people in the business community who said it is
very difficult to see if someone has the right to be here,’ Immigration
Minister Liam Byrne said at his office in London. ‘There are up to 60
documents that have to be presented in order to prove someone's
entitlement to be here. That is just too complicated.’

Under the legislation business people in the U.K. will start registering
for a ‘biometric immigration document’ from 2008, Byrne said. The data
will have to meet a European standard, he added.

The government is overhauling its immigration laws, following the
arrival of about 500,000 immigrants since 10 mainly East European
nations joined the European Union in 2004.

Britain has pledged 100 million pounds extra for enforcement and plans
new technology to count people in and out of Britain and biometric ID
cards for foreign nationals, a system to be expanded to U.K. citizens
from 2009.

Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose Labour Party trails behind the
opposition Conservatives in opinion polls, has put the fight against
crime and terrorism at the heart of his final months in office. Reid has
responsibility for pushing through seven of the 29 bills outlined to
Parliament on Nov. 15.

Every poll but one since 2004 has put the Conservatives ahead of the
government on immigration.

‘This is the government's sixth immigration bill in 10 years,’ Damian
Green, who speaks for the Conservatives on immigration, said in an
e-mailed statement. ‘The previous five have not worked so there is no
reason to believe that John Reid's tough rhetoric will translate into
effective action this time.’

Phil Booth, national co-ordinator of NO2ID, which campaigns against the
introduction of identity cards, dismissed the legislation as the ‘Let's
fingerprint Madonna Bill,’ a reference to the U.S. pop star who has
homes in the U.K.

‘The Home Office is acting out a piece of security theater,’ Booth said
in a telephone interview. ‘The impact on people who are here working
legitimately will be to treat them like asylum seekers are currently
being treated. It will have a potentially huge impact on the City,
increasing the burden on business.’

To contact the reporter on this story: Kitty Donaldson in London at
kdonaldson1@...





6.  SUDANESE JIJACKER DEMANDS ASYLUM IN BRITAIN

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=6270aee1-daf4-4cb3-876
a-eea87cec4c01

The man who hijacked a Sudanese jetliner this week, reportedly to call
attention to the situation in the Darfur region of the troubled country,
has asked for asylum in Britain following the safe resolution of the
crisis.

Media reports identify the hijacker as 26-year-old Mohamed Abdu Altif, a
resident of the North Darfur capital city El Fasher. Using a pistol,
Altif allegedly hijacked an Air West 737 flying from Khartoum to El
Fasher, and forced the pilot to land in the Chadian capital of
N'Djamena. None of the 103 persons onboard were injured in the incident.

'The passengers were unaware that the plane had been hijacked,' said Air
West managing director Saif Omer to the Associated Press. Chadian
authorities say Altif originally told the pilot to fly to London, but
agreed to land in Chad when the pilot informed him the plane didn't have
enough fuel.

Officials haven't commented on how Altif was able to board the flight
with a handgun, although it's common knowledge security is lacking in
the region.

'We don't know where the security breach occurred,' said an anonymous
Air West official.

Analysts fear the hijacking is likely to further complicate relations
between Chad and Sudan. The two countries have accused each other of
backing rebels in their respective countries for years.

Chad's infrastructure minister, Adoum Younousmi, said Altif would be
brought to trial, and not allowed to flee to Britain.

'He is a terrorist and we will take him to court,' Younousmi said.
Sudanese officials declined to comment on the matter.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BNP ANTI-JIHAD BULLETIN
JANUARY 22, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk


1.  BUSH BEING FORCED TO END WAR

The American political system, unlike ours, elects legislators and the
chief executive separately.  The recent Congressional election,
focussing on the war, put the Democratic party in power in the House of
Representatives and the Senate, and they are politely but inexorably
using their newly-acquired power to choke off Pres. Bush's war in Iraq.
Nobody wants bruising Vietnam-era hysterics in Washington, but their
Constitution does, when push comes to shove, enable the Congress to
close down a war -- at last resort, by refusing to fund it.  So no
matter how many last throws of the dice Mr. Bush begs for, his time has
run out.

With the collapse of the American effort in Iraq will come, whether
admitted in public or not, the collapse of the idea that the USA (and
any hangers-on) can impose by force benign democratic governments.
From this, it inescapably follows that whatever strategy we adopt,
towards dealing with the Middle East, must be based on accepting the
basic reality that these nations are what they are, and are not blobs of
political plasticine for us to reshape to what we would prefer them to
be.  We can't make them stop believing in Islam, or in jihad against us.
We must accept the reality of their hostility for the foreseeable
future, and get serious about defending ourselves against their threat
-- not dreaming about reconstructing the threat out of existence.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-warvote25jan25,1,17
27261.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

A Senate committee approved a toughly worded resolution Wednesday to
oppose a troop buildup in Iraq, moving Congress a step closer to an
official repudiation of President Bush's leadership of the increasingly
violent 4-year-old war.

In a sign of how partisan the debate over Iraq remains, only one
Republican joined Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to
support the nonbinding resolution, which bluntly declares: "It is not in
the national interest of the United States to deepen its military
involvement in Iraq."

But the vote - which came the day after Bush asked Congress to give his
proposal "a chance to work" - followed hours of criticism of the new
Iraq policy by Democratic and Republican lawmakers. Not a single
committee member endorsed the White House plan.

With that resolution headed to the Senate floor for debate as soon as
next week, momentum continued to build Wednesday behind a second, more
bipartisan resolution opposing the Bush Iraq plan.

Both resolutions are nonbinding and stop well short of the limits
Congress has put on spending to scale back other unpopular military
operations, including the Vietnam War. But they mark a sharp departure
from the largely deferential posture the Republican-led Congress assumed
after Bush sought and won approval for the Iraq invasion in 2002.

And as support grows for some legislative action, it appears
increasingly likely that Bush could face the equivalent of a
no-confidence vote.

Asked in a CNN interview how the administration would react if the
Senate passed a resolution against the president's Iraq plan, Vice
President Dick Cheney said: "It won't stop us, and it would be, I think,
detrimental from the standpoint of the troops."

The foreign relations panel's resolution, passed 12 to 9, is sponsored
by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Carl
Levin (D-Mich.).

The second resolution - championed by veteran Republican Sen. John W.
Warner of Virginia - has attracted four GOP co-sponsors and six
Democratic. And several Republican senators who voted against Biden's
resolution in committee expressed interest in Warner's measure. One of
Warner's co-sponsors, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), said Wednesday
evening that the measure's authors were talking with more lawmakers
about joining on to the resolution.

Warner's stature as a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee and a onetime Navy secretary has helped draw Republican
support. His proposal also is not complicated by presidential politics.
Both Biden and Hagel have expressed interest in running for the White
House.

The Warner resolution "disagrees" with Bush's plan to send 17,500
additional troops to Baghdad, citing rising sectarian violence in the
capital and a poor record of Iraqi cooperation with U.S. initiatives.

But it also includes deferential language recognizing the president's
authority as commander in chief and accepts the possibility that the
4,000 additional troops Bush wants in Al Anbar province may be needed.

The Biden measure is broadly similar, although it does not distinguish
between Baghdad and Al Anbar, a hotbed of the Sunni Arab insurgency.

Nearly all the Democrats on the foreign relations committee, including
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, said they hoped the resolution would
be only the first step in a congressional drive to start bringing the
war to an end.

"Kids are dying over there," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.),
another presidential hopeful and vocal war opponent. "We need to do
something meaningful."

Dodd offered two amendments to Biden's resolution that would have capped
the number of troops in Iraq and forced the president to seek
congressional authorization for further increases. The amendments
failed.

But Biden, the committee chairman, assured senators that he was also
interested in legislation to force the president to start withdrawing
troops. "We should be drawing down forces," Biden said. "We need a
radical change in course."

Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and longtime Iraq war opponent, chided his
Republican colleagues for their hesitation.

"The Congress has stood in the shadows . for four years," he said. "I
think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you
believe? What are you willing to support? . If you want a safe job, go
sell shoes."

The harangue did not move any of the nine other GOP lawmakers on the
committee, many of whom are uncomfortable with the tone of the
Democratic opposition to Bush's Iraq plans.

Nor were any minds changed by the removal of the word "escalating" from
the resolution, a nod to Republicans who consider the term a politically
loaded reference to Vietnam.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), a widely respected moderate who
previously led the committee, said he did not believe any resolution
opposing the president's policy would be productive.

"It is the wrong tool for this stage in the Iraq debate," Lugar said,
warning that it would be divisive and unlikely to affect the president's
thinking.

Other Republican senators expressed concern that it might send the wrong
message to American troops and that it failed to spell out any
alternative to Bush's plan.

"We all have a right to be against a plan. I also think we all have a
responsibility to be for a plan. This resolution is clearly not a plan,"
said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who has called for specific benchmarks
to measure progress in Iraq.

The Republican opposition to the resolution did not stop GOP lawmakers
from criticizing Bush's plans, however.

"I'm more skeptical about what we're doing than I ever have been
before," said Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), who noted that the more
he had learned from Bush administration officials about the buildup, the
more concerned he had become.

After Wednesday's committee vote, aides to Sens. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.)
and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), both of whom voted against the Biden
resolution, said the lawmakers were more comfortable with the language
in the Warner resolution.

Biden and his co-sponsors, as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.), have expressed a desire to work with Warner on a compromise
that could also go to the Senate floor next week.

Hagel, who has had several lengthy discussions with Warner, said he
anticipated more.

"We'll be doing a lot of talking," he said.





2.  A WARNING TO OVERLY-SENTIMENTAL CHRISTIANS

Christianity, whether one actually believes in it or not, is part of the
civilisational identity that we are defending.  However, some liberal
'Christians', as in the Church of England, would like to twist various
Christian teachings, like Jesus's command to 'turn the other cheek' and
'resist not evil', into the idea that we should fail to defend
ourselves.  Below is a salutary warning, from a reader of our website,
against this tendency.  Christians must remember that Jesus also said,
'Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's, and unto God, the
things that are God's', meaning that good Christians should respect the
necessities of the secular state, which include things like the armed
defence of the nation.  Healthy Christianity must remember that
Christendom only exists because it was successfully defended in the past
by great heroes like Richard the Lionheart.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/reg_showarticle.php?contentID=1797

I do not attend church as often as I should, I nonetheless consider
myself a Christian and regard Jesus Christ as my sole saviour and
redeemer and I strive to live my life in accord with His teachings. To
that end I turn the other cheek, I love my neighbour and I treat others,
as I would like to be treated. But, it must also be recognised that we
live in an imperfect world and there have to be limits to just how many
times a cheek can be turned, for instance. Unfortunately I have learned
this life experience the hard way, as they say, and although this may
make me less of a Christian in some eyes I certainly don't feel any less
Christian as a consequence. Being a Christian does not require me to
play the fool, at least not in my opinion. By that I mean serving Christ
does not mean that I should recklessly entertain those who wish to do me
and my kind harm. This brings me to the subject of Islam.

As a Christian the Lord teaches me to love my neighbour, a message
brought to congregations in a thousand sermons, in a thousand churches,
by those who, in the main, derive their experience of life not from the
streets and workplaces - but from book theology and the relatively
closeted and inward looking world of the Church itself. Should I love
the neighbour who sets out to do me harm, should "love thy neighbour" be
taken as an absolute commandment? I don't think so although, admittedly,
some do. I believe to do so would be folly and demonstrable folly at
that.

This does not mean that you should hate such a neighbour, far from it.
It means, in my opinion, you should recognise there are limitations to
love and that such limitations are necessarily determined by commonsense
exercised within the guiding context of our Christian teachings. Should
one offer unlimited love on all occasions to the neighbour who seeks
your destruction? Surely not! This is not the Biblical message as far as
I am concerned. Yet this is precisely what the Church is doing by
embracing Islam. It is holding to its naked bosom the viper that has
reaffirmed its dedication, down the centuries, to the total destruction
of our Christian Church. Its mission of oblivion for our Church, first
formulated on the sands of Arabia and reaffirmed a million times since -
even up until the present day - has not been moderated or even modified,
far less rescinded at any time since!

The fact that the viper hasn't bitten on the first occasion, or the
second or, indeed, the hundredth is no guarantee of reciprocated
brotherly love, anymore than it is a safeguard against that fatal bite -
which will inevitably be struck - if that religion is to be true unto
itself. For the Church to embrace Islam, even in its "moderate" form -
which is, after all, merely the reverse of the same coin struck bearing
its founding image of fundamentalism and intolerance - is to embrace its
own destruction and constitutes folly, may I say, of biblical
proportions.

The devil takes shapes in many ways to deceive those who believe in God.





3.  SERBIA, CANARY IN THE COAL MINE

Serbia, a nation unlucky enough to be on the front line geographically
against Islam, faces having its province of Kosovo -- historic cradle of
Serb nationhood -- ripped from it by the United Nations, and turned over
to the jihadist crime syndicate known as the Kosovo Liberation Army.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/20/wserb20.
xml

Nada Todorovic keeps a much cherished chunk of rock in her sitting room
in Belgrade.

"It is my own piece of Kosovo," the 69-year-old artist said mournfully,
remembering how she carried the lump home after a trip to Serbia's
border with the disputed territory.

"Kosovo is part of the soul of Serbia. If foreign powers take it away it

will be a great crime."

As Serbia votes in presidential elections tomorrow, the one thing both
hard-line nationalists and moderate reformists all warn is that if
Kosovo is granted independence in coming weeks, as the United Nations
hopes, the Balkans could be plunged into turmoil again eight years after

Nato forced Serb forces out of the territory.

advertisement
The UN is planning to set Kosovo on the path to independence with a
final status declaration for the territory as soon as next month.

The announcement, originally due last December, was delayed out of
concern that it could provoke an ultra-nationalist swing in Serbia. Even

if more moderate reformists emerge dominant in tomorrow's
tightly-contested vote, they too have made clear that they will not
support the UN's decision.

Serbs regard the region, which is replete with medieval art and
monasteries, as the font of their Orthodox civilisation.

Vojislav Kostunica, the prime minister, recently described the move as
the "most dangerous and destructive idea in Europe".

A constitutional lawyer, he passed a new constitution in October that
enshrined Kosovo as part of Serbia, so making independence illegal.

Even the Democrat Party, the only major party to accept that Kosovan
sovereignty is probably a fait accompli, has warned of Balkan
instability for years.

"It would present several regional problems, but also present problems
for the West," said Milan Markovic, a member of the party's executive.

"It would establish an international precedent of people who were a
minority not long ago using terrorism to achieve political goals, and
would encourage others to do the same."

Kosovo has been administered by the UN since the 1999 Nato bombing
campaign to expel Serb forces committing atrocities against civilians.
The previous year a rebellion was launched against Slobodan Milosevic's
revocation of the territory's autonomy.

But tension has simmered ever since and there is growing fear in
international community of a return to violence now either as Serbs
protest against the UN decision or by Kosovo Albanians frustrated by
delays in reaching their long sought after goal. EU foreign policy chief

Javier Solana this week urged the people of Kosovo to be patient. "It is

very important that everybody behaves properly if we want the last part
of the journey to have a nice, soft landing," he said.

A century ago ethnic Serbs were in the majority in Kosovo, but there is
now a 90 per cent ethnic Albanian Muslim majority, in part because of a
high birth rate, Serb migration after the Second World War and, Serbs
say, intimidation. Serbia is still recovering from 16 years of war and
sanctions and is not expected to launch military retaliation against the

new nation, which is likely to be granted a form of supervised
independence. Mr Kostunica has said Kosovo will be the single most
important issue as his party aims to forge a ruling coalition after
tomorrow's vote.

His stance has raised fears that he could ally with the uncompromisingly

nationalist Radical Party.






4.  ISLAM EXPOSED IN TV DOCUMENTARY

The TV programme dispatches recently did an excellent expose of what
Moslems in the UK are really up to.   Among other things, you can watch
the headmaster
of an Islamic school call for the legalisation of pedophilia, stoning of
homosexuals, and the overthrow of democracy. The program is cut into six
sections.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCLC8kjWCI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5t5EqWX92k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMztM0Z7BYE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zv3BUmwqs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvjvNScmTQA






5.  TORIES BACK WAR AGAINST IRAN

Iran has openly threatened nuclear strikes on Israel, so Israel has the
right of pre-emption (not the same thing as saying it would work), and
what America does there, is America's business (though the World
Policemen hasn't exactly had a stellar record of late.)  But for Britain
to participate in a pre-emptive war against Iran would be madness.
Nevertheless, the Tories are determined to show that they have only one
foreign policy idea: 'do a pale imitation of whatever the USA does.'

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2140280.ece

Liam Fox, the shadow Defence Secretary, has backed hawks in the White
House by calling for "nothing to be ruled out" to stop Iran acquiring a
nuclear weapon.

Mr Fox gave the clearest signal yet that the Conservatives would support
military action, including the use of nuclear strikes by the US or
Israel, to halt the alleged production of a nuclear weapon by Iran. "I
am a hawk on Iran," said Mr Fox. "We should rule absolutely nothing out
when it comes to Iran. They are notoriously good poker players and it is
a very high stakes game they are playing."

His remarks follow reports in the US that Israel is ready to use nuclear
"bunker buster" bombs to knock out the Iranian nuclear plants. Israeli
officials denied the reports but there is a widespread belief at
Westminster that Israel and America will not stand by while Iran
develops nuclear weapons, although Iran has denied it is doing so.

The issue has caused rifts in Tony Blair's Government. Jack Straw said
military action against Iran was "inconceivable" when he was foreign
secretary. Mr Blair has insisted that military action was not on the
agenda, but refused to go as far as Mr Straw in ruling it out.






6. MI-6 CHALLENGES BLAIR CLAIM ABOUT CORRUTION INQUIRY

So let's get this straight: the government of Saudi Arabia funds the
export of Islamism, and then has the nerve to threaten to cut off
cooperation against Islamic terrorists -- unless we give them the right
to violate our anti-corruption laws!  A single arms deal is not worth
the cost (including the economic cost) of destroying the credibility of
Britain's legal system and our reputation as an honest mart of the
world's trade.

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=548709

Britain's secret intelligence service, MI6, has challenged the
government's claim that a major corruption inquiry into Saudi Arabian
arms deals was threatening national security.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, told parliament before Christmas
that the intelligence agencies "agreed with the assessment" of Tony
Blair that national security was in jeopardy because the Saudis intended
to pull out of intelligence cooperation with Britain. But John Scarlett,
the head of MI6, has now refused to sign up to a government dossier
which says MI6 endorses this view.

Whitehall sources have told the Guardian that the statement to the Lords
was incorrect. MI6 and MI5 possessed no intelligence that the Saudis
intended to sever security links. The intelligence agencies had been
merely asked whether it would be damaging to UK national security if
such a breach did happen. They replied that naturally it would.

The issue has now come to a head because ministers are under pressure at
an international meeting today to justify why they terminated an
important corruption investigation into the arms company BAE Systems.

In a controversial move last month, Tony Blair ordered the Serious Fraud
Office inquiry to be halted, and said he took the responsibility for
doing so, after BAE lobbied him that it might otherwise lose a lucrative
Saudi order for more arms sales. The decision was condemned by MPs and
anti-corruption campaigners, and is now the subject of an inquiry by the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is
responsible for rooting out corruption around the world. Britain signed
up to its anti-bribery convention which made the payment of bribes a
specific criminal offence under UK law in 2002.

The OECD has demanded an explanation of the government's decision to
abruptly close down an inquiry which was investigating secret payments
made to Saudi royals.

Whitehall officials will be questioned by 35 other governments at the
Paris meeting, which can "name and shame" Britain if it finds against
them. As part of the government's preparations to provide a
justification to the OECD, MI6 was asked to sign up to a dossier which
made the claim that MI6 "endorsed" Mr Blair's national security claim,
according to those who have seen it.

When it was sent to MI6 headquarters last week, Mr Scarlett, refused.
Officials made it clear there were "differences" between the
intelligence agencies and the government over the language used by Lord
Goldsmith. A source said that Lord Goldsmith's claims to parliament in
December "contained quite a degree of conjecture". One official said
there was "nothing to suggest" that the Saudis had actually warned "if
you continue with this inquiry, we will cut off intelligence".

Asked if the security and intelligence agencies objected to claims that
they endorsed the attorney general's statement, an official replied:
"Exactly." The language has now been changed.

The dispute echoes the intelligence row about "sexing-up" the Iraq arms
dossier, when Mr Scarlett, then head of the Joint Intelligence
Committee, was persuaded to endorse false government claims that Saddam
Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Sources close to the
intelligence agencies say Mr Scarlett was unwilling to again provide
cover for ministers by endorsing another set of controversial government
claims.

Yesterday, Elfyn Llwyd, Plaid Cymru parliamentary leader, said: "I am
glad that the security services have stuck to their guns and told the
truth. This government is getting less and less credible every day".

Lord Goldsmith's version of events has also caused a breach with the
SFO. Its director, Robert Wardle, says his team found significant
evidence in the Saudi arms inquiry and was hoping to find more from
Swiss banks. Lord Goldsmith attempted to persuade MPs that the SFO had
found no evidence to justify prosecutions and never would.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BNP PUBLIC SERVICES BULLETIN
JANUARY 15, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk




1.  IMMIGRANT INFLUX OVERCROWDING OUR SCHOOLS

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23381245-details/Influx%20of%
20immigrants%20forces%20council%20to%20build%20four%20new%20schools/arti
cle.do

Pressure from an influx of children from East European immigrants has
forced a council to draw up plans to build four new primary schools.

Bradford council in West Yorkshire, where nearly 5,000 workers arrived
last year, is one of many local authorities experiencing a shortfall of
places in inner-city areas.

Yesterday education chiefs there said two of its existing primary
schools would need to be expanded and four new ones built to cope with
the increased demand for new places.

Bradford has the second highest birth rate of any part of Britain
outside London, and coming on top of that, immigration has left its
school system struggling, it said.

A council report said the high number of births 'has caused a shortfall
in places in some parts of the district when combined with large
numbers of Eastern European workers who are also moving into the
district, sometimes bringing their families with them'.

It added that it had been 'impossible to predict the increase in
numbers of newcomers' and finding places for them is 'becoming much
more difficult'.

Bradford is just one of many local councils reporting that it is under
strain as a result of record levels of immigration from Poland and
other parts of Eastern Europe.

One in five primary school children are now from an ethnic minority,
and some councils have been faced with massive bills to fund extra
support such as interpreters as they are legally obliged to admit
children from European Union member states.

At least 27,000 school-aged youngsters have arrived with their parents
in the UK since ten countries – including Poland, Slovakia and the
Czech Republic - joined the EU on May 1, 2004.

Elsewhere in the country, Wrexham in North Wales has reported that its
schools are facing a similar pressure - around 50 Polish children
started school there in September.

Agnieszka Tenteroba, a Polish teacher working with the newcomers, said:
'First it was the husbands coming to work. People who want to stay then
bring their families so we will have more and more Polish children in
Wrexham.'

Meanwhile in Slough, Berkshire, the council has reported that an influx
of an estimated 10,000 Poles has left it facing going £15million in
the red, with nearly 900 school pupils from non English-speaking
backgrounds.

And in Peterborough, where there were just 22 children of economic
migrants enrolled in secondary schools in January 2004, that has risen
to more than 100 with one secondary school warning it was being
'overwhelmed'.

The Government does not collect figures for the number of children
brought with them by immigrant workers, so officials in Bradford are
having to base their estimates on the number of new National Insurance
permits being issued - 4,650 last year.

The council's executive will now be asked to recommend research into
how to expand school provision to cater for the increased number of
children.

Colin Gill, executive member for children's services, said: 'In those
areas of the district where there are substantial changes in population
size and distribution, we will need to make alterations to ensure that
we provide the right number of primary school places in the right
locations.'

Bradford's birth rate, according to the latest figures, is the fourth
highest in Britain, after Birmingham and the London boroughs of Newham
and Hackney, with much of the growth thought to be within the city's
more established immigrant communities.






2.  'MUSLIMS SHOULD GET SPECIAL HEALTHCARE'

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23381411-details/Muslims+%252
7should+get+special+health+care%2527/article.do

Muslims should be provided with faith-based services - including male
circumcision - on the NHS, says one healthcare expert.

Professor Aziz Sheikh is also calling for women patients to see same-sex
medics, better access to prayer facilities in hospitals and more
information so Muslims can avoid alcohol and pig-derived drugs.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, the University of Edinburgh
professor also claims Muslims should be given health advice on
attempting the Hajj pilgrimage-to Mecca which he insisted was a
'religious obligation and not a holiday'.

The BMJ contrasts his opinions with those of Professor Aneez Esmail, of
Manchester University, who says in another article that it would not be
practical to meet everyone's demands for special services based on
religious identity.

He warned some faith groups might support practices which may be
unacceptable to the majority - such as female circumcision and the
refusal to accept blood transfusions.





3.  EU RAILWAY RULES BAD FOR COMMUTERS

http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/eu-railway-rules-bad-commuters/arti
cle-160770

With climate change and environmental issues topping the EU agenda,
there is an increasing focus on the need to develop more
energy-efficient means of transport, including rail.

Work on strengthening the European railway sector has been ongoing over
the past 15 years, with the adoption of two packages of legislation
that aim to open up rail transport to competition and harmonise
standards across Europe.

A third legislative package, aimed at liberalising international
passenger transport and improving passenger-rights protection, was
proposed by the Commission in March 2004 and is currently being
examined by the Parliament in second reading.
Issues:

The third railway package focuses predominantly on international
services and problems related to cross-border operation, despite the
fact that the rules will also, in many cases, be extended to suburban
and regional railways.

This could severely hinder the development of such domestic
short-distance operations, according to rail and public transport
operators.

A new study, conducted by the International Association for Public
Transport (UITP ) in the frame of the European Rail Research Advisory
Group (ERRAC ) and presented on 9 January 2007, reveals that there are
nine times more passengers using commuter and regional rail services
(to carry out short journeys of around 25km on average) than those on
international or long-distance trips.

Short-distance European railways carry nearly seven billion passengers
per year, against 1.25 billion passengers over the past 25 years for
France's TGV, for example.

Despite the importance of this sector, its specificities are being
ignored by EU rules, says the UITP.

A particular concern for the business sector is the Parliament's
decision to extend legislation on international passenger rights and
certification of train crews to all domestic services.

Application of ill-adapted, overly bureaucratic rules could hinder the
development of a transport sector crucial to helping European cities
deal with congestion and pollution problems.

According to UITP figures, the use of regional and commuter trains
helps Europe avoid each year:

     * 24 million km of traffic jams;
     * 30 million tonnes of CO2, and;
     * 1,312 human deaths and 36,800 injuries.

Hans Rat, secretary-general of the International Association for Public
Transport (UITP), said that the EU focused much too much on 'glossy'
trans-European projects, such as high-speed trains. He stressed that it
needed to re-direct its attention towards regional projects that play a
'decisive role' for the revitalisation of cities and the improvement of
public transport services.

Michel Quidort, chairman of the UITP Regional Railway Committee, said:
'The trend to encompass al railways in the same policies and to request
the same inter-operability demands and technical specifications is
hindering the development of regional rail.'

He particularly emphasised that EU rules on passenger rights must not
be applied to regional rail, saying that this issue must be dealt with
inside a contract between the local authority and the local operator.
'The subsidiarity principle must be applied to avoid creating an
impossible bureaucratic situation and to accommodate very specific
local conditions,' he stressed.

Also, on certification of train crew, the UITP believes that the single
driver licence proposed by the Commission is 'in contradiction with the
need to have specific knowledge of the line and the rolling stock'.
Laurent Dauby of the UITP, in charge of the study 'Suburban and
Regional Railway Landscape in Europe', insisted that even if some
recommendations are welcome at the European level, many of the demands
made by European legislation will bring 'zero added-value for the
customer'.

While cautious about demanding the full exclusion of suburban and
regional rail from the third railway package, he insisted on 'at least
a serious economic evaluation to see if it makes sense to include this
segment in the legislation'.

The Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies (CER)
stressed that the application of harmonised passenger rights on a
national level would prove unworkable and urged the EU to respect the
variety of national conditions and railway system realities. It gave an
example: 'Only 3% of the stations in Hungary are physically accessible
to persons with reduced mobility, compared to 75% in the UK. Hungarian
trains are on average nearly 29 years old, and inevitably less reliable
than modern trains in Western Europe…huge investments would be
necessary to achieve the same passengers' rights standards throughout
Europe. The problem is that today, in central and eastern Europe the
money is urgently needed for the basic operation of the system itself.'

However, consumers want the rules applied to all rail services. The
European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC) stated: 'We do support the
application of the regulation to every passenger, i.e. international
and national as we think that every passenger should be able to benefit
from the same minimum level of protection across the EU…It would be
difficult to argue that national passengers have more limited rights
compared to international passengers.'





4.  POLICE LET OFF FOREIGN VANDALS

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&ca
tegory=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED09%20Jan%202007%20
09%3A42%3A35%3A507


The police officer who told a crime victim two
offenders were not taken to court because they were
jobless foreign nationals with no income is to be
given advice on diversity issues, police have
revealed.

Norfolk police conceded PC John Waterman was wrong to
give such an explanation to a man whose car was
vandalised by criminals and today insisted their
status and nationality was not the reason the men were
given cautions rather than taken to court.

As revealed first by the Evening News, UEA research
student Barry Ferguson received a letter regarding the
case where criminals were caught on CCTV camera
vandalising cars in Magdalen Street. In a letter
explaining why the men would not be prosecuted, PC
Waterman said it was because they were both
unemployed foreign nationals with no income and it was
not in the public interest to pursue due to the
expenses incurred in having a trial. But Norfolk
police today said the officer was wrong to say this.

A force spokesman said: It is not the policy of
Norfolk constabulary, nor is it legal, to administer a
police caution based on someone's ethnicity or level
of income. After careful consideration of the
evidence, it was decided to deal with the offenders by
way of an official police caution. The officer has
been spoken to by senior officers on diversity and
policy issues and how to deal with this if it happens
again. Police said when they interviewed the men,
aged 19 and 29, they also admitted eight other
offences of vandalising cars, so the caution was
effectively an admission of guilt for 10 offences as
opposed to the two police had secured evidence on.
While not a conviction, it will be added to their
police record and can be cited in court should they
re-offend, the spokesman added.

Ian Gibson, Norwich North MP, said: Rather than send
the officer on a diversity course it would be better
if the police sat down and made clear what their
policy is. There should be justice for all and maybe
we need a policy change.

Mr Ferguson, 29, of Magdalen Street, said: I am
dismayed that even though these people were caught in
the act they are getting away with wanton vandalism.
This has nothing to do with the fact they are foreign
nationals - no one should get away with this type of
thing.

What do you think about the issue? Write to Evening
News Letters, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich, NR1
1RE, email eveningnewsletters@...






5. HOME OFFICE BUNGLES CRIMINAL DATA

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1986671,00.html

A major row broke out last night between the Home Office and senior
police
officers over how more than 500 serious offenders escaped criminal
records
vetting despite being convicted of offences around Europe.

Senior police officers revealed the fresh Home Office blunder yesterday
when
they told MPs that data on the convictions of Britons abroad had been
sent to
the Home Office in London but had simply been left 'sitting in desk
files'
instead of being put on the police national computer so it could be used
for
vetting checks.

The 27,529 paper records containing details of British people convicted
around
Europe passed to the Home Office include 525 convicted of more serious
offences.
They include five murderers, 28 rapists and attempted rapists, 29
paedophiles
and 17 other sex offenders, and 29 robbers.

A Home Office spokesman said last night that this was 'a serious issue
that is
now being remedied' and said it involved a backlog of notification of
crimes
committed by British citizens abroad up until early 2006. 'As the police
made
clear the case files of all serious offenders in the backlog have been
entered
on to the police national computer.' But chief constables last night
said only
half of the serious cases have so far actually been logged: 'We are
processing
them but it is taking time,' said a spokeswoman for the Association of
Chief
Police Officers.

Urgent checks are also to be carried out on whether any of the 525
serious
offenders have applied for jobs and mistakenly been given a clean bill
of health
to work with children or vulnerable adults by the Criminal Records
Bureau
despite their convictions. The disclosure last night triggered the
announcement
of a 'full and immediate' inquiry. The home secretary, John Reid, is to
summon
senior police officers and Criminal Records Bureau chiefs to explain
what is
being done to deal with the situation.

In the face of opposition charges of a cover-up, Mr Reid had to admit
that he
had only learned of the problem after chief police officers had revealed
it when
giving evidence to MPs yesterday.

'This fact was not made public earlier because to the best of our
knowledge this
matter was not brought to the attention of the home secretary or his
ministers
until today, otherwise it would have been highlighted when he listed the
reasons
why the department's systems and procedures were not fit for purpose,'
said a
Home Office statement last night.

This new criminal records blunder happened after the paper records on
cases of
Britons convicted of crimes abroad, mainly in other EU states, was
passed to the
Home Office under new EU arrangements to share information on criminal
convictions across Europe. The data relates to crimes dating back to
1999 up
until March 2006 on convictions of British citizens in 15 countries,
mainly EU
members. Paul Kernaghan, Hampshire's chief constable and an Acpo
spokesman, told
the Commons home affairs select committee that the situation was
'totally
unacceptable' and a new system had been set up last May to try to
rectify the
problem. Urgent checks are now going on to see if any have been given
clearance
by the Criminal Records Bureau to work with children or vulnerable
adults.

'Until the Acpo criminal records office was created someone could go to
Germany,
commit a sexual offence and serve a sentence - and this would not be
known to
any police officer when they came back to the UK. It would not be known
to the
UK courts if they re-offended and it would not be reflected in their
sentencing.'

Mr Kernaghan said that was a totally unacceptable position
professionally and in
terms of public protection. 'The information was sitting in desk files
and not
entered on the PNC. They are working their way through putting serious
offenders
on a risk-assessed basis on the PNC.'

The police say that none of the convicted rapists had been notified to
the sex
offenders' register: 'If these particular offenders had been the subject
of
checks for employment through the Criminal Records Bureau, the search
would have
returned a 'no trace'.'

The blunder happened before a new agency - the UK central authority for
the
exchange of criminal records - was set up last May. Before that date the
information was sent by other European governments to the Home Office on
the
grounds that it was the officially designated 'central authority for
mutual
legal assistance'.





6.  ONLY ONE CRIME IN 100 PROSECUTED

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article
_id=426065&in_page_id=1770

Just one crime in every hundred now leads to the offender being caught,
charged and punished by the courts, latest statistics reveal.

The Home Office's own figures showed crime on the rise last year and
more criminals being caught by police, yet the numbers being sent before
the court dropped sharply by eight per cent year-on-year.

Opposition critics blamed the dramatic rise in the use of 'summary
justice' - instant fines or cautions and warnings handed out by the
police - and accused the Government of creating an 'arbitrary' justice
system, letting off hundreds of thousands of criminals with punishments
no tougher than a parking ticket.

In the year to June 2006 the British Crime Survey measured 11,016,000
offences against adults living in households in England and Wales - up
from 10,912,000 in 2005.

However an analysis by independent statisticians - accepted by the Home
Office - shows that the British Crime Survey counts only a third of all
crimes as it ignores all offences against businesses including
shoplifting, 'victimless' crimes such as drug possession and any
offences committed against under-16s.

The number of criminals caught and dealt with by police rose by six per
cent year-on-year from 1,428,000 to 1,516,000.

Yet the number of offenders charged and sent before the courts -
magistrates or crown courts -fell by eight per cent from 453,000 to
423,000.

More than 80,000 court cases were dropped or discontinued due to
suspects or witnesses failing to show up, and the number actually
sentenced in courts dropped five per cent from 317,000 to 306,000 - less
than one per cent of the estimated 33million-plus crimes each year.

Most were given fines or community punishments and the number sent to
jail fell from 80,000 to 76,000 last year.

Meanwhile soaring numbers of crimes were diverted into the 'instant'
justice system.

The use of police cautions or on-the-spot fines rose by more than
200,000 year-on-year.

Ministers are encouraging greater use of these rapid punishments even
for relatively serious crimes such as shoplifting, to avoid clogging up
the courts and to ease the prison overcrowding crisis.

The police also tend to favour instant punishments as they involve less
red-tape than a criminal prosecution but still count as 'solved' crimes,
helping them meet Home Office targets.

But critics claim the policy represents an increasingly soft approach
which merely encourages repeat offending, while up to a third of fines
are never paid. The number of fixed penalty notices handed out by police
is rising fast with 146,481 in the year to March, more than double the
previous year's total of 63,639.

Ministers faced fierce criticism recently for extending the use of 80
spot fines - introduced four years ago - to cover shoplifting offences
up to a value of 200.

Since the law on cannabis was relaxed three years ago police have
stopped arresting most users and instead given them a warning - which
counts as a 'detected' offence but carries no criminal record.

Last year 66,000 cannabis users received such warnings instead of being
charged, up from just 39,000 a year earlier.

Numbers of Penalty Notices for Disorder - spot fines for yobbish and
anti-social behaviour - have also rocketed to 110,000 in the year to
March, up from just 49,000 a year earlier.

And the use of cautions by police as an alternative to bringing charges
rocketed by 22 per cent 327,000 year-on-year.

Cautions can be handed out for burglary, assaults and possessing Class A
drugs. Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said: 'It is bad enough that
so many people are committing crimes, it is outrageous that so many
people are getting away with it.

'Labour have consistently undermined our criminal justice system by
effectively decriminalising many crimes.

'The solution is to simplify and reform our criminal justice system so
people can be properly and effectively punished, not to arbitrarily
divert offenders into a system where serious crimes are punished with
the equivalent of a parking ticket or warning note.'

Crime levels have begun rising since John Reid took over as Home
Secretary in May - bringing to an end more than a decade of gradual
falls.

Muggings, low-level violence and drug possession are all on the rise
after the Government relaxed the laws on drinking and cannabis, and
scrapped a high-profile robbery crackdown.




7. PRISON SERVICE DOESN'T KNOW HOW MANY PRISONERS ARE ON THE RUN

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=31332007

The head of the Prison Service has admitted he does not know
how many inmates are on the run from open prisons.

Director general Phil Wheatley said there was no system to count the
number of prisoners who absconded from such jails.

His comments, reported by the BBC, come one day after Derbyshire
Police finally agreed to release the photographs of two convicted
murderers who are on the run after escaping from Sudbury Open Prison in
Derbyshire.


The force had originally claimed releasing the pictures could breach
their human rights.

Mr Wheatley estimated almost 700 offenders absconded in the year to
last April from England's 15 open prisons.

Classed as Category D, open prisons have a more relaxed security
regime.

Mr Wheatley told the BBC the Prison Service did not have an accurate
system for those who were recaptured.

He said he was 'embarrassed' to admit he was unable to provide an
accurate figure because there was no central database for recording
numbers of recaptured prisoners.

Mr Wheatley added that the 'vast majority' of inmates who absconded
were 'arrested promptly'.

This week, the Home Office, replying to a Freedom of Information Act
request, said 401 of the prisoners remained at large when figures were
compiled last May.

A Prison Service spokesman said: 'The absconders are immediately
reported to the police and the necessary information is entered on
individual prisons' locally held databases.

'The Prison Service is taking steps to ensure the information from
those local systems is quality controlled when included nationally.
'Numbers of absconders continue to fall despite the rising prison
population.'

According to the Home Office, open prisons are the 'most effective'
way of ensuring prisoners are ready to rejoin the community before their
release.

Every inmate sent to an open jail is risk assessed and categorised as
a low risk to the public.

It said the number of prisoners who abscond in relation to the prison
population is now at its lowest level for 10 years.

A Home Office spokesman said: 'As the Home Secretary made clear in the
reform documents published last summer there is a problem with the Home
Office statistics and work is under way to improve the quality of Home
Office data and information management by making the information we use
accurate, reliable and relevant.'



8.  ONLY ONE POLICE STATION IN EIGHT OPEN ALL HOURS

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/08/npolice08.xml

Only 13 per cent of police stations - about one in eight - are
open to the public 24 hours a day, a survey by The Daily Telegraph of
the 43 forces in England and Wales has disclosed.

The figure includes the total for the Metropolitan Police, which has
the highest number and proportion of stations open around the clock.
When the Met is removed, the total falls to nine per cent.

More than a third of forces - 18 - have no stations open at all times
and 34 have fewer than five. The non-Met average is
three stations open all hours per force.

Figures for previous years are not kept, but there is wide acceptance
that chief constables - invariably citing economic necessity and the use
of phones to contact police - have reduced opening hours in recent
years.

Last month The Daily Telegraph reported that almost 900 stations had
closed in the past 14 years.

Police chiefs claim that the public does not suffer because there is
still an all-hours response by officers in stations that may not be open
to the public all the time.

But the consequences of the service's retreat from open-door access
was disturbingly illustrated when a businessman, Stephen Langford, 43,
was beaten to death yards from a station in Henley, Oxon, last month.
The station was closed to the public, staff inside did not hear the
attack and Mr Langford was found dying by officers in a patrol car.
The Daily Telegraph obtained station details from force websites, or
directly from their headquarters. The forces classed 1,538 premises as
stations. Of those, 202 - or 13.13 per cent - were said to be open at
all times. Of that total, the Met accounted for 133 stations, 74 of them
open all hours. At 57 per cent, this was the highest proportion in any
force.

The Home Office insists that opening hours are a matter for police,
and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) says it cannot
comment because decisions are down to individual forces. Both maintain
that the public can ring 999 for assistance.

However, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg,
said: 'The public need to be reassured that the police are accessible
when and wherever needed.

'These alarming statistics show that in large parts of the country
people simply don't have the police stations they expect in their area.'
Jan Berry, the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales,
and others believe the reason for the decline in the number of open all
hours stations is financial. Mrs Berry said: 'It's important that the
police are available for the public when needed; closing police stations
is often a false economy and does nothing to reassure them. Police
stations have become a casualty of an approach by Government and chief
officers who see policing as a business rather than a service.'

She also pointed to research for the Police Federation which showed
that many 'response teams' - police on duty to deal with 999 and other
calls - were 'understaffed, overworked, chasing targets rather than
criminals and sinking in bureaucracy'.

Nick Herbert, the Tory spokesman on police reform, said: 'Forces need
to manage their resources efficiently but there is a danger that closed
stations send the wrong signal to the public. Innovative solutions are
needed, for instance the police sharing outposts with other services to
maintain a reassuring presence.'

It is also clear from the figures that a force can open a substantial
number of stations around the clock. Essex Police has 47 stations with
12 open all hours.
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BNP PUBLIC SERVICES BULLETIN
JANUARY 22, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk


1.  MINISTERS BEG JUDGES: DON'T JAIL ANY MORE CRIMINALS!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article
_id=430962

Desperate ministers will beg judges to stop sending criminals to prisons
- because they are full.

A letter will be sent to courts across the country admitting that jails
are officially in crisis.

It pleads for only the most violent or dangerous criminals to be given a
custodial sentence. Magistrates are also being asked to allow bail to
all but the most serious crime suspects.

The letter, signed by Home Secretary John Reid, Lord Chancellor Lord
Falconer and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, is the first in a series
of drastic steps likely over the next few weeks.

The most dramatic option is to order the early release of thousands of
inmates sentenced to 12 months or less.

The Home Secretary has been struggling since last summer to contain the
overcrowding crisis - caused by the Government ignoring repeated advice
to build
more prisons - but it is now escalating rapidly. Politicians don't take
advice because the big headed buggers think they know it all. In fact
they really know very little about most things, a conclusion come to by
years of watching their abysmal performances.

On Monday alone, nearly 300 more prisoners were sent down by the courts
than
were released, pushing the jail population to almost 80,000.

Mr Reid, Lord Falconer and Lord Goldsmith have met senior judges to
explain that
the system is now in meltdown. It was agreed that the three Ministers
would
circulate a 'communique' to the entire criminal justice system. It calls
on the
courts to jail only the worst criminals – effectively freeing thousands
who
would normally have been put behind bars.

In cases where judges and magistrates are considering a term of 12
months or
less, they are 'reminded' they could use a community sentence instead.
Magistrates are also urged to consider bail instead of remanding
suspects such
as burglars. Around 13,000 suspects are in custody awaiting trial.

Mr Reid paved the way for his move when he said recently that taxpayers'
money
should not be 'squandered' on locking up or monitoring offenders who
would be
better punished in the community. But having to plead with the courts is
still a
humiliation for the Home Secretary and leaves Labour's pledge to be
tough on
crime in tatters.

Home Office ministers have been warned repeatedly by their officials
that the
jail population was growing rapidly, but have failed to provide
sufficient extra
places. Mr Reid has belatedly promised 8,000 more -  but none will be
available
until spring. In the meantime, hundreds of criminals are locked in
police cells
at a cost of £365 each a day.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said last night: "It is outrageous
that
sentences are being dictated by the prison capacity and not by the crime
committed.

"Yet again we see the public being put at risk by the failure of
ministers. How
much longer must the public pay the price of Gordon Brown's miserliness
and John
Reid's incompetence?

"John Reid must say what he intends to do about this crisis, and not
rely on his
usual tactic of dreaming up an unworkable gimmick to try and deflect the
bad
headlines."

Home Office officials are hoping today's letter will buy Mr Reid some
time to
think of a politically- acceptable solution. But they fear he will be
forced to
take more drastic action as early as next week.

The 'nuclear option' is the early release of thousands of inmates
sentenced to a
year or less. They would not even be placed under supervision, simply be
told
they were free to go. Mr Reid wants to avoid this at all costs, fearing
it would
instantly wreck his reputation for toughness and demolish any hopes of a
challenge for the Labour leadership.

Less dramatic, but still highly damaging, would be an extension in the
use of
releasing inmates on tags. Other plans include letting as many as 30,000
criminals serving up to four years walk free ten days before their
sentences
would normally end. This was suggested by officials last year, but
blocked by
the Home Secretary and Downing Street.

Mr Reid is also likely to try to move foreign prisoners awaiting
deportation
decisions into immigration holding centres, and his officials are trying
to
acquire prison ships.





2.  NO SPEEDING FINES FOR FOREIGN DRIVERS

http://news.intranetics.co.uk/articles/3225.html

Speeding foreign drivers have little need for a speed camera detector
as thousands are managing to avoid speed fines.

In Leicestershire alone, nearly 1,500 foreign drivers have escaped an
automatic notice of intended prosecution, despite being snapped by a
gatso speed camera.

Under current laws, drivers only have to register foreign number plates
if the vehicle will be driven in the UK for more than six months.

With no central registry of more fleeting visitors, many foreign
drivers simply need to leave the country to evade prosecution for a
traffic fine.

Leicestershire safety camera partnership snapped 1,487 speeding foreign
vehicles in 2006, including one case on the A1 near Oakham where a
vehicle with foreign plates was snapped at 121 mph.

Speed camera officials admitted that the loophole is likely to provoke
resentment among British drivers, who frequently complain of the
proliferation of speed cameras and the need for speed camera maps when
driving.

"People will be a little frustrated to see that a foreign driver is
perhaps getting away with speeding because we can't trace them and they
themselves may have drifted over the speed limit and been caught," said
Hema Lad from the Leicestershire safety camera partnership.

Leicester MP Peter Soulsby claims that better sharing of vehicle data
is necessary.

The Labour MP said: "It just needs our computer system at the DVLA to
be linked with similar systems in other European countries.

"It needs them to talk to each other to exchange information and make
sure these drivers that are breaking our laws pay our fines."

Transport for London (TfL) has previously admitted that there are
similar problems in the capital, with foreign drivers evading the
congestion charge.

Between January 2005 and June 2006, TfL reports that 88,000 foreign
drivers escaped the C-charge, amounting to lost fines worth £8.8
million.

TfL claimed that the lack of a Europe-wide agreement on fine
enforcement made it very difficult for UK local authorities to tackle
foreign drivers.

Police chiefs warned late last year that foreign lorry drivers pose a
danger to British road users, with the Association of Chief Police
Officers claiming that the expansion of the EU had exacerbated the
problem.

It was found that many foreign lorries were unsafe compared to UK
standards. The road safety charity Brake further warns that foreign
lorry drivers do not have to undergo additional training.

Figures show that foreign drivers are at least as likely to offend as
UK drivers.



3.  NHS BLUNDERS KILL 200 PEOPLE PER YEAR

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/19/nhs19.xml

More than 200 patients died last year as a result of mistakes made by
hospital staff while another 1,800 were made worse during treatment, it
has been revealed.

Some patients were given overdoses of radiation or had healthy organs
removed in operations, while others died after being wrongly attached to
medical equipment.
advertisement

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that 2,109
events which could injure patients, staff or public - known as serious
untoward incidents - were reported to health authorities in 2006.

At least 221 resulted in avoidable deaths, including a 76-year-old man
who had a feeding tube inserted into his lungs instead of his stomach
and a pensioner who was given air instead of pure oxygen.

Hundreds more patients were made worse while in hospital because of
wrong diagnoses or mistakes in treatment, such as a woman who had
chemotherapy and surgery for ovarian cancer when she never had the
disease.

At least 55 people were given the wrong medication or too much, with
seven receiving an overdose of radiation. More than 100 suffered from
serious delays in diagnoses or treatment.

There were 43 reports of serious equipment malfunction, one of which
left a patient's lungs filled with hot water after a respiratory
humidifier broke down.

In one NHS trust, a pregnant woman was exposed to radiation which led
to the termination of her pregnancy, while a teaching hospital reported
a baby suffering fractured ribs and humerus while being delivered with
forceps.

Hospitals also reported 172 outbreaks of communicable diseases,
including 94 confirmed cases of the superbug MRSA. It is thought that
injuries to patients cost the NHS £2 billion a year in compensation and
legal fees.

Katherine Murphy, the director of the Patients' Association, condemned
the figures which were compiled from reports made by 141 of England's
170 hospital trusts between December 2005 and December 2006.

She said: "These cases will shock and appall everyone who has to trust
the NHS with their lives. Patient safety should be paramount.

"But with the NHS deficit, staff are not getting adequate training,
which leads to mistakes."

The Department of Health insisted most patients receive safe
treatment, and said that more reporting of mistakes helps make sure they
are not repeated.

A spokesman said: "The incidents reported by the acute trusts account
for only a tiny proportion of the care and treatment carried out by NHS
staff across the country.

"But we have to recognise that in our increasingly complex health
service, mistakes can and will inevitably happen."



4.  PATIENTS SENT TO WRONG WARDS TO MEET NUMERICAL TARGETS

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/17/nae117.xml

Doctors are struggling to meet the Government’s accident and
emergency waiting time target because the NHS cash crisis is resulting
in a shortage of beds, doctors’ leaders warned today.

A survey for the British Medical Association (BMA) found that a
shortage of hospital beds was delaying the admission of patients from
A&E in England.

The Government target is that 98 per cent of patients should wait no
more than four hours from arrival at A&E to admission, transfer or
discharge. While recent Government figures show that 98.2 per cent of
patients were seen and treated within four hours in the year to April
2006, a third of the doctors questioned said figures were being
manipulated to the target.

Doctors' leaders also said that while there have been improvements,
healthcare trusts are claiming to hit the target by including figures
from minor injuries units and walk-in centres where patients are being
seen more quickly than in actual A&E departments.

A total of 503 members the British Association for Emergency Medicine,
including staff at all grades working in emergency departments, took
part in the survey.

It found nine out of 10 doctors believed a lack of in-patient beds was
the main reason for not meeting the Government target. Many also blamed
staff shortages and patients attending A&E with minor problems.

The NHS finished the last financial year with a record deficit of
£512 million. Two-thirds said patients were moved to inappropriate
areas or wards to help meet the target. Almost all, 97 per cent, said
their workload had increased in the last 12 months, with most blaming
the transfer of out-of-hours care from GPs to primary care trusts.
The survey also revealed that doctors from one third, or 67, of the
200 A&E units in England believe their unit is at risk of being
downgraded or closed.

Don MacKechnie, chairman of the BMA’s Emergency Medicine Committee,
said: “Many hospitals have cut bed numbers as part of their financial
recovery plans and attempts to balance their books.

“This means that there are fewer available beds for patients coming
through A&E who need to be transferred within four hours to a hospital
ward from the emergency department to meet the Government’s access
target.”

A Department of Health spokesperson said: “The NHS is treating more
patients than ever before and is treating them more efficiently.





5.  MORE STEALTH PRIVATISATION FEARS FOR NHS

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-
/1/hi/health/6287261.stm

Hospitals could be put under threat and the NHS fragmented by a plan to
set up private centres to take over simple procedures from hospitals,
doctors say.

Health chiefs in the North West have become the first to start
consulting on a new breed of private clinics to carry out diagnostics
and minor treatment.

The Clinical Assessment Treatment and Support centres have been designed
to cut waiting lists, officials said.

But doctors warned they could starve hospitals of money.

The specialities covered by the proposed centres are ear, nose and
throat, general surgery, orthopaedics, rheumatology and minor
treatments, which combined contribute 80% of hospital workloads.

Similar schemes are expected to be put forward elsewhere in the country
as the contracts are being negotiated by the Department of Health, with
NHS trusts only expected to pay for the services patients use.

If hospital units become unviable, NHS capacity is wasted, jobs are
lost, and services that patients have valued for years are cut
Dr Jonathan Fielden, of the BMA

They go a step further than the much-criticised independent sector
treatment centres as they have the ability to carry out diagnostic
tests.

Primary care trusts in Cumbria and Lancashire are carrying out an eight-
week consultation over the centres which will be run by private firms,
but paid for out of the NHS purse.

The two preferred bidders which have been chosen are Netcare and Care
UK.

It comes as the NHS attempts to meet the government's 18-week treatment
target by the end of 2008.

At the moment, all patients are seen within six months but this does not
include the time it takes from seeing a GP to getting diagnosed, which
it is estimated can be as long as the wait for treatment.

The eight private centres aim to speed up this process by carrying out
the diagnosis and treatment assessments in one go.

If only minor treatment is required, the centres will have the ability
to carry that out as well.

If not, they will refer on to the appropriate community or hospital
services.

The theory is that as the local hospital will be freed from this
assessment and diagnostic process - only a third of patients referred to
hospitals as outpatients end up being given treatment - they will have
more time to carry out treatments.

Mike Farrar, chief executive of NHS North West, said: "The centres are
not a replacement for hospital services, rather they will let the
hospitals concentrate more on what they do best - treating those who
need immediate care.

"Neither will they reduce the volume of work done at local hospitals.
Achieving the 18 week target will mean more work for the hospital trusts
and therefore more income to support more NHS services."

But the British Medical Association has criticised the plans.

Threat

Dr Jonathan Fielden, chairman of the BMA's consultants committee, said:
"These proposals could represent a significant threat to local NHS
hospitals.

"When work goes to the private sector, they lose income.

"If hospital units become unviable, NHS capacity is wasted, jobs are
lost, and services that patients have valued for years are cut.

"Unless they are carefully integrated, and local clinicians engaged, the
number of specialties and cases involved means that core NHS work is
likely to be hit, rather than surplus capacity being created.

And he added the public consultation in Lancashire and Cumbria was
clearly "on the location of CATS - not on the real issue, which is why
the NHS, rather than profit-making companies, can't be given the chance
to further cut waiting times".

It is envisaged the centres will be up and running by the end of the
summer.





6. SCHOOLS HAVE NO WAY TO CHECK CRIMINAL RECORDS OF FOREIGN TEACHERS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article
_id=429094&in_page_id=1770

The Home Office faced a fresh row today when it emerged that London’s
schools have no means of checking criminal records of some foreign
teachers.

The Daily Mail's sister paper, the Evening Standard, has learned that
Britain has formal arrangements to check the backgrounds of prospective
teachers from only 17 countries worldwide.

Sign up for the latest news alerts


For the other 176 nationalities from across the globe, the Department
for Education and Skills’ advice to schools is to simply “take extra
care” in checking the references of foreign applicants for teaching
posts.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis today seized on the revelation as the
latest proof that the Government was failing to protect the public.

London’s schools are a particular cause for concern because they rely
heavily on overseas teachers and in some areas supply staff are almost
exclusively from abroad.

One head teacher in the capital has warned in the past that if foreign
teachers were banned from working, half of the capital’s schools would
have to close.

The lack of checks has emerged as part of the wider controversy over a
Home Office failure to put British criminals’ overseas convictions on
the national police database. The department’s most senior civil servant
admitted last night that it had “fallen short” in telling ministers of a
backlog of 27,000 cases that were missing from the computer files, with
540 for serious or violent offences.

But the problem has also now exposed what the Tories called a “big hole”
in the system of checking foreign nationals who had committed crimes
abroad but still wanted to work in the UK.

Despite tightening rules for British teachers last year, the DfES points
out that if an applicant has never worked in the UK, checks by the
Criminal Records Bureau are pointless.

Similarly, the applicant will not show up on List 99, a database of
those who should be barred from working with children.

The CRB operates an Overseas Information Service but updated guidance
issued in 2004 states that “at present the service is limited to 17
countries”.

MrDavis said: “The point about databases is that they should be
complete. It takes one mistake to result in a tragedy.”

The DfES said that schools should try to obtain “certificates of good
conduct from relevant embassies or police forces”.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BNP PUBLIC SERVICES BULLETIN
JANUARY 29, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk



1.  BAD PUBLIC SERVICES GET BRITAIN RATED 37TH-BEST PLACE TO LIVE IN

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=britain--the-37th-best-country-
in-the-world&method=full&objectid=18538286&siteid=94762-name_page.html

BRITAIN has only managed 37th in a league of the best places to live -
making it worse than Panama, Mexico and Argentina.

The UK was marked down for its bad weather, poor transport, high cost of
living and health service.

But we did score highly for our economy and our social freedoms.

Britain was trounced by many countries which have a similar climate,
such as Holland, Denmark, Luxembourg and Germany, because they were seen
to have a better health service and infrastructure.

France topped the 191-strong list as the nation with the best quality of
life, followed by Australia, Holland, New Zealand and the US.

The French scored extra points thanks to their high-speed TGV trains,
spare hospital beds, culture, ski resorts, beaches and warmer climate.

International Living magazine judged countries on their cost of living,
culture and leisure, economy, environment, freedom, health,
infrastructure, safety and risk, and climate. A spokeswoman for the
magazine said: ‘Britain is still relatively high on the list and it is
undoubtedly an economic powerhouse with a strong and identifiable
culture.

‘But it is also expensive, its transport lets it down and it rains a
lot.’

Italy - 8th in the survey - scored a perfect 100 for culture. Its
climate, lower cost of living and transport service also bumping it up
the rankings.

A lower cost of living and increased safety compared with previous years
sent Panama (34th), Mexico (25th) and Argentina (10th) storming up the
list.

Their natural environments and climate also helped their rankings.

Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Afghanistan were judged to be the five
most dangerous places on earth.

Haiti was the most corrupt. The Pacific island of Nauru was ranked as
the cheapest place to live.

mirrornews@...

THE TOP 50 PLACES TO LIVE:


1 France
2 Australia
3 Netherlands
4 New Zealand
5 United States
6 Switzerland
7 Denmark
8 Italy
9 Luxembourg
10 Argentina
11 Norway

[List continues online]




2. DOCTORS HIGHLIGHT POLITICAL DAMAGE TO NHS

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=21508

The message from politicians that Britain cannot afford healthcare -
even though it is one of the richest economies in the world - is
damaging the NHS.

That's the warning from an A&E consultant columnist writing in BMA News
this week. 'If we tried caring instead of business models, it might fit
better as an NHS ethos,' says 'Frontline Medicine' columnist Charles
Lamb, noting that the caring element is being forced out of the NHS.

Alongside, a junior doctor tells of his experiences trying to obtain
plastic surgery urgently needed for a patient with a gaping arm wound.
'After nearly two hours of continuous effort, a plastic surgeon
understood my desperate situation and agreed to help.'

The shocked patient learnt that hospital reconfiguration meant he had to
travel during the night to a theatre 100 miles away to get the crucial
treatment.

The 'Vital Signs' columnist writes: 'I felt sorry not only for the
patient but also for my plastic (surgeon) colleagues who were so
overloaded with extra work just because of the ‘resource crunch’ we all
face nowadays.

'This problem has become an inherent part of every hospital doctor's
life.'

The BMA, as part of its 'Caring for the NHS' campaign, is currently
working on an alternative vision for the NHS to counter what they see as
conflicting and damaging reforms.

http://www.bma.org.uk



3.   FURY OVER NHS GOLDEN HANDSHAKES

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1152241.0.fury_over
_new_nhs_golden_handshakes.php

More health bosses could be walking away with golden handshakes from a
health trust which has handed out almost £500,000 to senior managers.

Gina Brocklehurst, former chief executive of the Eastbourne Downs
Primary Care Trust, was given £230,00 after standing down from her
position following a reorganisation of health trusts in Sussex.

Earlier this month it was reported Dr Iheadi Onwuke, a former director
of public health, was paid £243,000 after working at the same trust for
just three weeks.

Advertisement     continued...East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust chief
executive Annette Sergeant received a £231,000 termination payment in
2005.

Nick Yeo chief executive of East Downs and Weald Primary Care Trust
claimed pay-offs were part of the reorganisation of health trusts which
would save £1 million a year.

Mr Yeo said there had been no further pay-offs since October last year
when the reorganisation took place but warned there would probably be
more to come.

He said: ‘We are at the early stages of reorganisation. There will
probably be others, sadly, who there won't be a place for.’

Mr Yeo said efforts were being made to find senior managers positions
elsewhere in the NHS. He said more details about the reorganisation
would be released at the trusts board meeting in March.

According to an NHS website, Ms Brocklehurst left the trust to take up a
‘transitional role’ with Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority.

Yesterday the authority, now called South East Coast SHA, released a
statement which said: ‘Gina Brocklehurst only had a contract with the
PCT and didn't work for the strategic health authority or any other NHS
organisation in our area.’

The pay-offs come amid concerns for the future of services at Eastbourne
District Hospital (EDH) and Hastings Conquest Hospital.

Save EDH campaigner Monica Corrina-Kavakli said: ‘It's outrageous. There
is no excuse, no reason for anybody to get that money. It's not come as
any surprise to us. ‘The money would pay for 300 cataract operations and
more than 40 heart by-passes.’

Norman Baker, MP for Lewes, called the NHS pay-off a national scandal
and said he would be bringing the issue up with the secretary of state
for health.

Mr Baker said: ‘We were told reorganisation was to help the service but
they're helping individuals who are being paid off.

‘I'm horrified these people can re-apply for jobs in the NHS. It is
absolutely disgraceful.’






4.  NHS STAFF ASKED TO EASE BUDGET PROBLEMS BY WORKING FOR FREE

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23383211-details/NHS+staff+as
ked+to+ease+budget+problems+by+working+for+free/article.do


An NHS trust is asking staff to work a day for free to help ease its
financial crisis.

Workers at the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust have been sent a
letter asking them to help balance the books.

It said donating ‘just one extra day of work without additional pay as a
voluntary contribution’ would benefit the trust, which has a historic
debt of almost £17 million.

And, to the anger of health campaigners, the trust wants to implement a
raft of measures so it can sign a contract with a private company under
the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme.

Plans are formulating to build a multi-million hospital and mental
health unit in Pembury under PFI, but the letter hints at dire
consequences if the trust fails to hit its March targets.

The leaked memo, from Terry Coode, director of human resources to all
staff, said the trust was ‘facing a very significant challenge this
year’.

It added: ‘To be unsuccessful in our target will have serious
consequences for the trust that will affect us all.

‘It will jeopardise our investment and development plans, including our
ability to build the PFI and will weaken our stance as we strive to
ensure a strong position for (Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells) in the 'fit
for future' reconfiguration of healthcare services in Kent that will
take place in the years ahead.’

It continued: ‘To date we have avoided significant job loss as part of
our financial recovery activity, unlike many trusts across the country.’

The letter sets out how job losses can be avoided, including ‘inviting
enquiries about the possibility of voluntary redundancy’.

It also offers staff the chance to take a six-month unpaid break ‘to
pursue a personal ambition or just to take a well-earned break’.

Staff would be able to return to their original jobs or one in a similar
position, it added.

The letter also encouraged staff to carry forward five days' holiday to
the next year to ‘help avoid additional costs this year’.

Asking staff to work for free, it said: ‘We are also asking staff to
contribute just one extra day without additional pay as a voluntary
contribution to year-end.

The trust is waiting to hear from the Treasury on whether plans to build
a £300m, 512-bed hospital and mental health unit at Pembury under the
PFI scheme will go ahead.

International consortia Equion has been chosen by the trust as its first
choice developer for the project, which is due to get under way in the
autumn subject to ministerial approval.

Geoff Martin, head of campaigns at the group Health Emergency, said:
‘This slaps the nut on the Government's health care policy.

‘Nurses and other members of the healthcare team are called on to work
for nothing so that speculators and banks can cream off another fat
profit from an NHS PFI scheme.

‘This is Robin Hood in reverse, robbing the poor to fill the pockets of
the rich and it's happening right under the noses of a Labour Government
who are ripping the heart out of the NHS.’

The trust said staff were being asked to work a day unpaid on an
entirely voluntary basis.

In a statement, it said: ‘Our staff have suggested this idea to help
reduce agency use as part of plans to stay within our budgets.

‘This informal request was extended to all staff and we've had doctors
offering to work extra hours for free.

‘This is not about saving our PFI, but getting our finances right.’

An Audit Commission report published last January said the trust would
need ‘very significant additional external support’ to recover from a
deficit of almost £17m.

Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: ‘This is an
unacceptable consequence of the Government placing a deadline on the NHS
to clear its deficits this year.

‘Patricia Hewitt said she would take personal responsibility for the NHS
breaking even this year, but now it seems doctors and nurses are
expected to pay the price.

‘The stark reality is that trusts cannot quickly clear deficits which
have taken years to accumulate without making damaging clinical cuts or
cutting the pay of their hard-working employees.’




5.  NHS 'BEING PARCELLED UP AND PRIVATISED BIT BY BIT'

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/012607/news012607_07.html

Actress Emma Thompson and former Labour MP Tony Benn added their voices
this week to a major campaign against ‘patchwork’ privatisation of the
NHS.

Ms Thompson has signed a letter expressing her fears that market-based
schemes are being pushed through with the minimum of debate.
Other signatories include Helena Kennedy QC, agony aunt Claire Rayner
and Keep the NHS Public co-founder Professor Wendy Savage, who lives in
Islington.

Ms Thompson writes: ‘These untested rapid changes – the most extensive
since the service was founded – threaten the values that bind the NHS
together.’

At the same time, Mr Benn, a former Labour minister, told a packed
conference at Friends Meeting House in Euston on Saturday that soon only
the very wealthy will be able to afford health care.

He said: ‘The NHS came about because of the power people exercised at
the ballot box. They brought health care with their votes instead of
with their wallets, but now with NHS privatisation it’s going the other
way. Soon only people with money will be able to afford the best health
care.’

He added that, instead of ‘spending all this money on Iraq’, cash should
be spent on the NHS.

The 300-strong audience heard that the private company which took over
Islington’s care homes and then halved workers’ salaries is about to run
a hospital at Lymington in the New Forest.

Professor Savage said that this was the first time an entire hospital
has been privatised.

She added: ‘Care UK will be taking over the running of the Lymington
this summer. Their first actions when taking over Islington care homes
was to reduce the wages of staff. Profits should not be made out of
health and social care.’

She added that, unlike the Thatcher privatisations of the 1980s, this
time the whole NHS is not being put up for auction.
Professor Savage said: ‘Instead, it is being parcelled up into
bite-sized pieces, and handed over to private control bit by bit. This
is happening on such a scale and at such a pace as to make it a unique
phenomenon.

‘The government’s greatest achievement has been to push through the
biggest change in the history of the NHS – under the radar and without a
public mandate. It’s time for an open debate about whether people want
the patchwork privatisation of their health service.’

Kentish Town consultant Dr Jacky Davis told the conference that the
government has squandered the goodwill of health workers. She said: ‘The
frontline workers who have always put patients first will be struggling
with the consequences of these reforms long after the architects retire
to write their memoirs.’

According to calculations made by the Keep Our NHS Public campaign, the
private sector will pocket at least £23 billion of NHS money in profits
and interest over 30 years through the private finance initiative
hospital building scheme.






6.  PRIVATE FINANCE INITATIVE FIRMS TAKE £23BN PROFIT FROM NHS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6279889.stm

The private sector will make £23bn in profits and interest over the next
30 years by building NHS hospitals, campaigners have calculated. Under
the private finance initiative, a company builds a hospital and then
gets ‘rent’ from the NHS for a set term.

A report by the Keep Our NHS Public claims the government is carrying
out ‘patchwork privatisation’ of the NHS. The Department of Health said
it ‘did not recognise the figures’ and was ‘committed to a publicly
funded NHS’. The report was being launched at a conference for health
campaigners in London on Saturday.

It says: ‘Unlike the Thatcher privatisations of the 1980s, the whole NHS
is not being put up for auction. ‘Instead, it is being parcelled up into
bite-sized pieces and handed over to private control bit by bit. ‘This
is happening on such a scale and at such pace as to make it a unique
phenomenon.’

Alex Nunns, of Keep Our NHS Public, said: ‘Unbeknown to the public, the
NHS is paying astronomical sums of money to the private sector.
‘When the NHS is making cuts and closures across the country, it's time
to ask if this is the best use of public money.’

As recently as October, the government disclosed some of the figures
involved in the NHS's use of PFI schemes to finance new hospitals. The
figures, which emerged in a response to a Parliamentary Question tabled
by Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, showed that the NHS would pay
a total of £53bn to the private firms involved.

That amount was the total cost, as opposed to the numbers in the report
by Keep Our NHS Public, which relate to profits. But the Tories claimed
at the time that the new hospitals themselves were only worth £8bn,
leaving ‘completely unjustifiable’ extra costs of £45bn.

A spokesman from the Department of Health said in response to the new
report that the annual payments made by NHS trusts to private sector
partners covered financing charges, repayment of capital, building
maintenance and, in most cases, all the non-clinical support services
like cleaning and catering.

He said the last two of this list could account for between 40% and 50%
of the annual payments. ‘The NHS has always used the independent sector
for treating patients,’ he said ‘But the difference is now that we pay
much less for this extra capacity for NHS patients thanks to our robust
contracting.’

He said more than 250,000 people had received treatment faster than they
would otherwise have done thanks to the independent sector.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BNP ANTI-JIHAD BULLETIN
JANUARY 15, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk






1.  MORE CLERICS PREACHING HOLY WAR IN UK MOSQUES

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C01%5C15%5Cstory_15-
1-2007_pg7_30

Britain's Channel Four is to air a documentary today that shows clerics
at a number of leading British mosques exhorting followers to prepare
for jihad, to hit girls for not wearing the hijab, and to follow Islamic
law over UK law, The Observer reports.

The documentary, Undercover Mosques, Dispatches, contains video footage
secretly filmed in British mosques over a period of 12 months.

At the Sparkbrook mosque, run by the UK Islamic Mission (UKIM), an
organisation that maintains 45 mosques in Britain, a preacher is
captured on film praising the Taliban. In response to the news that a
British Muslim solider was killed fighting the Taliban, the speaker
declares: 'The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his
shoulders.'

Another speaker says Muslims cannot accept the rule of non-Muslims. 'You
cannot accept the rule of the kaffir,' Dr Ijaz Mian tells a meeting held
within the mosque. 'We have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the
others.'

When contacted by The Observer, UKIM said: 'We are a nationwide
organisation and hold different programmes in our mosques. We are very
concerned about this. We have instructed all our branches not to allow
any more speakers with radical or fundamentalist views.'

Elsewhere the documentary records the huge popularity of DVDs and
Internet broadcasts produced by extremist preachers. At the Islamic
bookstore at Regent's Park Mosque in central London, DVDs of a preacher
called Sheikh Yasin are sold. In one DVD, Yasin accuses missionaries
from the World Health Organisation and Christian groups of putting the
AIDS virus in the medicine of African people.

Inside the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, a preacher is recorded
saying: 'Allah has created the woman deficient.' A satellite broadcast
from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh,
beamed into the Green Lane mosque suggests that Muslim children should
be hit if they don't pray: 'When he is seven, tell him to go and pray,
and start hitting them when they are 10.' Another preacher is heard
saying that if a girl 'doesn't wear hijab, we hit her'.

Another preacher says: 'The time is fast approaching where the tables
are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of
being uppermost in strength and, when that happens, people won't get
killed - unjustly.'

2. 'MUSLIMS MUST GROW IN STRENGTH THEN TAKE OVER' - IMAM

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=britain-s-new-preachers-of-hate
&method=full&objectid=18442715&siteid=94762-name_page.html

IN a dilapidated mosque, half a dozen awestruck young men listen to a
preacher spell out his vision for Britain.

'King, Queen, House of Commons... if you accept it, you are a part of
it,' says Dr Ijaz Mian. 'If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle
it.

'So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target. There will be no House
of Commons. From that White House to this Black House, we know we have
to dismantle it.

'Muslims must grow in strength... then take over.'

A 10-month undercover investigation into home-grown extremism has
revealed hard-line Islamic fundamentalism being preached in British
mosques. Some speakers call for girls to be hit if they don't wear
Islamic dress and say that they can marry before puberty, others praise
the Taliban. Speaking at the Ahl-e-Hadith mosque, in Derby, Dr Mian
tells his listeners: 'You are in a situation in which you have to live
like a state-within-a-state - until you take over.

'But until this happens, you have to preach, until you become such a
force that the people just submit to you.'

Dr Mian wants to see religious policemen roaming our streets, modelled
on the feared Saudi Arabian force.  He says of their strict
implementation of Sharia - or Islamic - law: 'They send the police and
they say: 'Well, if you don't come for prayer, we will arrest you. But
if you still don't, then we have to bring the punishment on you - you
will be killed and nobody will pray for you.''

Dr Mian is just one of many UK preachers who've been taught the wahhabi
branch of Islam in Saudi Arabia, then come back here to spread the word.
The radical ideology, which is bitterly opposed to multi-culturalism and
integration, is spreading in Britain. And it's coming from clerics in a
country that the British government claims is its main Middle Eastern
ally in the fight against terrorism.

At UKIM's Sparkbrook Islamic Centre, in Birmingham - which PM Tony Blair
has lauded for its multi-cultural activities - a preacher praised the
Taliban. He gloated over the fate of British Muslim Jabron Hashmi, who
joined the British Army and was killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
'The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his
shoulders,' he says.

The probe uncovered British preachers being trained in Saudi Arabia and
mosques taking money from rich sheikhs. DVDs and tapes of radical
speakers, who are linked to Saudi, are available. They attack
integration, multiculturalism and even other Muslims who don't follow
their extreme brand of Islam. It's a theology which many moderates are
deeply concerned about, as they see the traditional, more tolerant
beliefs being eroded.


On one DVD, filmed in a mosque run by a national Islamic charity - which
claims to be committed to moderation - a speaker said girls should be
'forced' to wear the hijab and, shockingly, adds: 'If she doesn't wear
hijab, we hit her.'


Undercover reporters spent four months filming at Green Lane mosque, in
Birmingham, an enormous place which caters for thousands of worshippers.
One preacher there said that marrying your daughter off before she
reaches puberty is permissible in Islam.  But the main preacher at Green
Lane is Abu Usamah, an American convert who studied at Medinah
University in Saudi Arabia.  He rails against non- Muslims, telling
listeners not to believe in the arrests of alleged terrorists in Britain
- as non- Muslims are liars.

Green Lane mosque says it is a centre for 'interfaith communication and
dialogue', welcoming people of all religions and cultures. But in front
of a Muslim-only audience, Abu Usamah says that Jews and Christians were
'enemies' to Muslims. He goes on to condemn the kuffaar - infidels or
non-believers.

'No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person here loves the kuffaar,'
he rants. 'We hate the kuffaar!'

Although he says he doesn't agree with Osama Bin Laden's violent
actions, he says he prefers him to non-Muslims, because Bin Laden is a
Muslim. 'He's better than a million George Bushs, he's better than a
thousand Tony Blairs.

'Allah has not given those people who are kuffaar a way over the
believer. They shouldn't be in authority over us,' he tells his
listeners. 'Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with living in anything other
than a total Islamic state.'

He urges worshippers to discriminate against homosexuals but in a way
that ensures they don't get caught. 'If I were to call homosexuals
perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that's my freedom
of speech, isn't it?' he says. 'But they'll say no, I'm not tolerant.'

Women, too, are inferior in Abu Usamah's eyes. He tells his audience:
'Allah has created the woman - even if she gets a PhD - deficient. Her
intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones
that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal
the one witness of the man.'


Abu Usamah says that he condemns terrorism. But he predicts that an army
of Muslims will soon arise to wage jihad - or war - against
non-believers.

'They will fight in the cause of Allah. I encourage all of you to be
from among them, to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is
fast approaching - where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims
are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength.

'And when that happens, people won't get killed - unjustly,' he
threatens.

Green Lane mosque is the headquarters of the Markazi Jamiat
Ahl-e-Hadith, a registered British charity which runs more than 40
mosques and branches in the UK.

It's an influential affiliate of the Muslim Council Of Britain, which
has praised it as 'a national body', 'respected among British Muslims
for its educational and outreach programmes'.


It runs a part-time Islamic school for 200 local children and the mosque
has been praised by Lord Nazir Ahmed, Labour's first Muslim peer.  He
sat on a highprofile taskforce - set up after the 7/7 attacks - to
combat extremism in mosques. He also headed a working group on extremism
in mosques and imams.

In 2003, he said of Green Lane mosque: 'This is the most amazing place.
When I walk in, I feel I am entering the biggest palace on earth.' Most
of the speakers there have been trained in Saudi universities.  And to
underline the point, throughout last year, live satellite links were set
up to broadcast talks from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, the
country's most senior Islamic cleric. In the course of one live session,
one worshipper asked the cleric, through a translator, if Muslims should
establish good relations and forgiveness between religions.

The Grand Mufti slapped him down. 'This is not true. Jews and Christians
who do not follow the Prophet Mohammed are kuffaar. They will go to
hell.' For his part, Abu Usamah later said: 'Islam allows for any Muslim
to peacefully co-exist here in the UK with non-Muslims, even though the
UK is not an Islamic society.'

He said he had made it clear that it is a religious duty of all Muslims
to obey UK law and the carrying out of Islamic law could only be done in
an actual Islamic state.  He added: 'Homosexuality is an abomination
against Allah and all mankind, and I will never condone it. Even though
this is the case, I do not believe in disobeying the law when it comes
to the way people deal with homosexuals.'

Lord Ahmed told us that Green Lane mosque was one of many mosques he
visited. 'It would be ludicrous to suggest that by visiting an
institution I become responsible for, or aware of, every word spoken at
that establishment.' The Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith told us that it was
'committed to promoting inter-faith dialogue and political harmony in
our society'.

It said that scholars from many different backgrounds spoke at its
mosque and that we had quoted many out of context.  It had not known
what each speaker would say beforehand and did not necessarily agree
with everything that may have been said.  It said the word kuffaar was a
neutral term, and added: 'We reject the assertion... that we are
influenced by and teach an extreme version of Islam.

'We have no desire or intention to seize power or discriminate against
others. We accept the rule of law and we treat our non-Muslim neighbours
with respect.'

Finally, Dr Mian said that he did not advocate that Islam would be
forced upon anyone and said we had not quoted his many speeches
condemning terrorism and the killing of innocent people.

features@...





3.  CONSTRUCTION CONTINUES ON LONDON SUPERMOSQUE


http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=mosque11207.htm

Indicating that the U.K. has learned little from the 7/7 London bombings
and the increasing militancy of its Muslim population, construction
plans continue unabated on the largest mosque outside of the Arab world,
a huge 17 acre complex in East London that will accommodate 70,000.

The group behind the mosque is Tablighi Jamaat [TJ] meaning
'proselytizing group' an association of Islamic fundamentalists whose
aim is to spread their creed throughout the world.

Middle east scholar Alex Alexiev calls TJ 'wolves in sheep's clothing'
quoting the FBI's Deputy Chief of International Terrorism who said there
is 'a significant presence of Tablighi Jamaat in the United States.and
we have found that Al-Qaeda used them for recruiting now and in the
past.' [source Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2005
http://www.meforum.org/article/686#_ftn13]

According to Alexiev, Tablighi [also Tabligh] Jamaat which originated in
India but is active in Pakistan 'have long been involved in terrorism'
and have created spin off organizations including Harakat ul-Jihad-i
Islami and Harakat ul-Mujahideen. which has conducted airline hijackings
and mass murders.

It is believed that London bombing kingpin Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader
of the July 7 might have been associated with Tablighi Jamaat.

Quoting from an investigative piece by MSNB:

'If al-Qaida needed a fresh set of bodies in order to pull an operation,
one of the places that they would go to for that fresh set of bodies
would be Tablighi Jamaat, whether it's in the United States or not,'
says former FBI agent Steve Denny, who has investigated members of
Tablighi.'
This makes it all the more surprising that the Blair government would be
so tolerant of such a huge potential terror risk.

Not only are American security officials highly suspicious of the group
behind the new mosque, but so are members of London's Muslim community:

Dr Irfan al-Alawi, Chairman of the Muslim Heritage Foundation opposes
the building of the mosque, saying it is an obvious security risk.


'I think, yes. Once the youth have been brainwashed, and been captured
by the satanic ideology of the Tablighis, yes, it will come as a very
hard-hitting movement.The person who is really behind it is Ken
Livingstone,' al-Alawi said.' (source:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/83805.aspx)
Livingstone is the notorious 'Red Ken' the anti-Semitic mayor of London
and his support of this monstrosity is indicative of the still growing
unholy alliance between the left and the Islamists.





4.  WORLDWIDE PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS BY MUSLIMS

http://www.spcm.org/Journal/spip.php?article5394

As many as 250 million Christians worldwide will face persecution and
repression in 2007, just for following Jesus Christ, according to the
latest roundup of the world's persecution hot spots by Release
International.

Inspire Magazine (www.inspiremagazine.org.uk/news.aspx
?action=view&id=716) reported that Release, a voice for the persecuted
hurch, has found that most persecution takes place in four distinct
'zones ;' those of Islam, Communism, Hinduism and Buddhism. But
persecution is growing fastest of all in the Islamic world.

Governments in even moderate Muslim countries often fail to safeguard
the rights of their Christian minorities. According to Release, abuses
suffered by Christians include kidnapping, forced conversion,
imprisonment, church destruction, torture, rape and execution.

One of the world's worst abusers of religious freedom is Saudi Arabia,
guardian of Islam's holiest sites Mecca and Medina. A Muslim found
'guilty' of converting to Christianity could face the death sentence for
apostasy. And anyone who leads a Muslim to Christ faces jail, expulsion
or execution.

'There's a conspiracy of silence around Saudi,' said Release
International's CEO Andy Dipper, 'probably because the West wants their
oil and their money. But this is a government that hands out the death
sentence for its own citizens who want nothing more than the freedom to
choose their own faith. And while Saudi bans all Christian literature,
it spends billions of dollars each year propagating Islam around the
world.'

But some of the most violent persecution in the Islamic world is beyond
government control, Inspire reported Release commented. Since the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 2001, the world has been made dramatically
aware of Islamist global networks. Although the best known is Al Qaeda,
there are others who exploit religious tensions for their own political
ends.

A rising number of extremists interpret the call to jihad as a call to
violence, Release commented. The organization added that extremists
apparently regard it as their religious duty to force Christians and
non-Muslims to convert to Islam. Those who refuse must be driven out or
killed.

There is a growing movement to impose Islamic (Sharia) law, Inspire
reported Release stated, which results in increased pressure on
Christians. In Nigeria, militants have driven Christians from their
homes to remove political opposition and pave the way for Sharia law.

Despite the collapse of Communism in Europe, persecution of Christians
continues in China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea.

Communist governments remain ideologically opposed to Christianity and
have pursued systematic programs to weaken and destroy the Church,
Release commented. Some persecution also continues under the 'old guard'
in the former Soviet Union, and China - which Release commented for all
its economic openness - continues to drive Christians underground.

'As China prepares for the Olympic Games western governments would do
well to remember that China detains more Christians than any other
country,' Inspire reported Dipper commented. 'Believers and leaders who
want nothing more than to worship freely face imprisonment, torture and
even death.'

In the Hindu world Christians face persecution in India and Nepal,
Release stated. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), one of India's largest
political parties, is associated with militant Hindu nationalist groups.
Extremists have been involved in a growing number of attacks against
both Christians and Muslims.

Several Indian states have introduced laws against forced conversion,
but these are wide open to abuse, Inspire reported Release commented.
Christians face most pressure in rural areas, where militants have
destroyed churches and threatened, attacked and killed church leaders.

In the Buddhist world, Christians face persecution in Bhutan, Burma and
Sri Lanka. Release reported that Buddhist militants regard Christianity
as a threat to their national identity and unity. They have stirred up
harassment and violence against Christians in Bhutan and Sri Lanka.

Back in 1966 Burma expelled most of its Christian missions. Today the
repressive military regime still maintains controls over religious
activity. There have been many cases of forced conversion to Buddhism as
well as violence against Christians, Inspire reported Release stated.

Through its partners in 30 countries, Release International supports
Christians imprisoned for their faith and their families. Release
supplies Bibles and Christian literature, gives medical aid and welfare,
provides legal aid and sanctuary, and supports church workers.

For more information about release go to
www.releaseinternational.org/pages/what-we-do.php







5.  MI-5 CLAIMED NO THREAT BEFORE 7/7

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1985970,00.html

The director-general of the security service MI5 told senior MPs there
was no imminent terrorist threat to London or the rest of the country
less than 24 hours before the July 7 suicide bombings.

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller gave the assurance at a private meeting of
Labour whips at the Commons on the morning of July 6 2005, the Guardian
has learned from a number of those present.

The whips are said to have been confident, on leaving the meeting, that
they could brief fellow MPs that the security situation was under
control, and are said to have been deeply alarmed by the following day's
events.

Last month Dame Eliza announced that she is to retire in April. That
announcement came weeks before details are expected to be made public of
an MI5 operation which saw two of the July 7 bombers kept under
surveillance, but not arrested.
It is now known that officers had trailed the bombers' leader, Mohammed
Siddique Khan, more than a year before the attacks, and had listened as
he spoke of his plans for waging jihad. They had also photographed him,
yet had not been able to identify him.

Security sources denied that Dame Eliza's decision to retire was in any
way connected to the briefing given to the Labour whips, or to any
aspect of MI5's performance before the July 7 bombings. They said she
had made her plans clear in early 2005 to Charles Clarke, then home
secretary, before the bombs went off.

This would suggest that just two and a half years into her tenure, she
was able to give a leaving date more than two years in advance.

However, the disclosure that MI5 had been so completely taken by
surprise on July 7 will fuel calls for a public or independent inquiry
into the events leading up to the suicide bomb attacks that claimed 52
lives and injured hundreds.

Grahame Russell, whose son Philip, 29, died in the Tavistock Square bus
bombing, said: 'Unless we have a public inquiry where witnesses can be
called and questioned, we will never get the truthful answers about what
happened before, during and after July 7 2005.'

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, repeated his demands for an
independent rather than public inquiry, along the lines of the Franks
committee, which examined the causes of the Falklands war.

'Reports like this, and the Metropolitan police commissioner saying
hours before the bombings that London had a 'gold standard' of
counterterrorism policing, can only reinforce the absolute need for an
independent inquiry, along the lines of the Franks inquiry.

'It is absolutely necessary for the continued security of the British
public that we know precisely if, when and how security failures have
occurred, and for action to be taken to minimise the risk of it
happening again.'

The government argues that such an inquiry would be an expensive and
time-consuming diversion for the police and the security service.

MI5 says it has identified 30 major terrorist plots in Britain and is
targeting more than 1,600 individuals actively engaged in promoting
attacks, here and abroad.

A dozen Labour whips were addressed by Dame Eliza about the terrorist
threat to the UK the day before the bombings, at a meeting called by
Hilary Armstrong, then the government chief whip. Such meetings have
been held on an irregular basis since the attacks of September 11,
although they are usually given by a senior MI5 officer rather than the
director general.

Sources have told the Guardian that Dame Eliza told them that there was
'no imminent threat to London or the country' from a terrorist attack.

They also say she appeared rather detached from the detail of security
operations that must have been taking place at the time.

It was already known that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, a
government body based at the headquarters of MI5, had reduced its
assessment of the threat to Britain from level 2, or 'severe-general' to
level 3, or 'substantial', six weeks before the July 7 bombings.

Whitehall is now trawling for candidates to replace Dame Eliza. The
clear favourite is Jonathan Evans, her respected deputy, who has led
MI5's al-Qaida-related counterterrorist operations.

As part of a decision to make the terrorist warning system more
transparent, from today anyone who registers their email on MI5's
website will be told when the threat level changes as well as about any
other new information placed on the site.

The current assessment is at level 2, now known as 'severe', meaning an
attack is highly likely. The highest threat level is 'critical', meaning
that an attack is expected imminently.







6.  SAUDI ARABIA, FALSE FRIEND

This old article is being included, in the light of the ongoing BAE
scandal, to make clear to our readers just what an evil and insane
society Saudi Arabia is, despite its pretentions to be our ally against
terrorism.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5222

Austere mosques, women relegated to the background and a puritanical
faith that rejects change. A brand of Islam that drives the Taliban and
influenced the young American who fought by their side has taken root in
the Mecca of modernism, America. The mosques and women in question are
in Dearborn, Michigan, the fruits of America's 'special relationship'
with the most rigid totalitarian dictatorship in the world. Welcome to
the Saudi connection, one of the best-kept secrets inside the Beltway.

The moving spirit behind the project is in Muhammad's homeland, and the
fuel that makes it possible is oil. The Muslim World League was founded
in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in 1962, and a decade later the Organization of
the Islamic Conference, with its headquarters in the Saudi city of
Jeddah. Both organizations, and a myriad of ostensibly private charities
devoted to Islamic proselytism, are richly endowed by petrodollars from
Saudi Arabia's narrow, ultra-rich ruling kleptocracy. Its members
provide aid to countries willing to follow the path of Islamization, and
build mosques wherever they can. They send missionaries, provide
literature, and run electronic media. The MWL runs the world's largest
printing presses, producing tens of millions of copies of the Koran
every year for worldwide distribution.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the most intolerant Islamic regime in the
world. The practice of any religion besides Islam is as strictly
prohibited now as it was in Muhammad's lifetime. Even the Taliban
allowed more latitude to religious minorities. While the Saudis continue
to build mosques all over the world, thousands of Christians among the
hundreds of thousands of foreign workers from India, Europe, America,
and the Philippines must worship in secret and in fear. They are
arrested, lashed or deported for public display of their beliefs.

Because Saudi money helps spread Islamist government to other nations
which repress Christianity, like Sudan, Saudi Arabia is now the most
powerful and explicit anti-Christian nation on the face of the earth. It
is waging a world-wide proxy war against Christianity - and, to be fair,
other religions that Islam comes into contact with, like Judaism in
Israel, Hinduism in India, animism in Africa, Bahai in Iran, and
Buddhism in Southeast Asia - not matched in intensity since the days
when the Communists were serious about atheism.

Saudi Arabia doesn't only disregard the rights of its own people, it
tramples on those of Americans, too. In Saudi Arabia, American citizens
can be detained indefinitely at the pleasure of a Saudi Muslim father
who kidnapped them from their American mother. This has happened to
Patricia Roush, whose daughters Alia and Aisha are now clad from head to
toe in the black abaya. Alia has been married off to one of her father's
cousins, and Aisha is the next on whom the purdah will fall. The State
Department directed the U.S. embassy in Riyadh to remain 'impartial.'
Ray Mabus, ex-U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, explains that diplomats
feel they should be working on the 'big stuff.'

Western politicians lie about Saudi Arabia all the time. 'Saudi Arabia
is a good and dependable friend to the civilized world,' Britain's Tony
Blair declared during a tour of the Middle East in 2001. 'Civilization'
is a relative term to a high priest of post-modernism like Mr. Blair,
but his enthusiasm for the House of Saud may be easier to understand if
we consider that Britain's arms merchants have their most lucrative
buyer in the desert kingdom. And we are as glued to the same teat as the
British: in only six years (1991-1997) there were $23 billion worth of
arms agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. This means
jobs, and congressmen, in places where defense plants are located.

The dirty little secret is that large sections of the American and
European elites are being deliberately fed Saudi money, directly and
indirectly, to bribe them to exert pressures at home favorable to Saudi
Arabia. The Carlyle Group, for example, is a Washington D.C. investment
bank that specializes in investing Saudi royal wealth abroad. It also
has a convenient habit of employing people close to the Bush
administration. Shades of Clintonesque corruption? To be fair, the
smoking gun is not in view, but as citizens, we are entitled to wonder
about what are politely called 'conflicts of interest.' Does anyone look
at this and not 'get' how the game is obviously played?

Saudi Arabia's 'royal' kleptocracy (a dynasty of antiquity inferior to
most decent brands of whisky) owns huge parts of major American
corporations, and that is the 'big stuff.' Suffice to say that the
present U.S. Ambassador there is Dallas attorney Robert Jordan, a man
with no diplomatic experience, but also the lawyer who defended George
W. Bush in a probe of insider trading allegations in 1990. Jordan comes
from the Dallas office of Houston law firm Baker & Botts, which has an
office in Riyadh and whose client list includes The Carlyle Group. One
of the Group's directors is former President George Bush Sr., while
James A. Baker III is the current Baker in Baker Botts. Baker was a
classmate of Donald H. Rumsfeld at Princeton. Rumsfeld, the current
Secretary of Defense, was the roommate of Frank C. Carlucci. Carlucci,
who was head of the National Security Council under President Ronald
Reagan, is currently chairman of The Carlyle Group. At least $2 million
of Carlyle funding has come from the bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia.

The focus on the 'big stuff' also allowed thousands of young Saudis easy
access to American visas under various pretexts, many of them hell-bent
on waging jihad against the unbelievers. The Saudi authorities issued
them exit visas in the full knowledge what they were up to. At least
they were keen to get rid of the potentially troublesome hotheads who
could stir up trouble at home. Worse still, they may have considered the
resulting mayhem, exemplified in the predominantly Saudi suicide teams
of September 11, as not necessarily wrong or undesirable. Rather than
prevent young Saudis from enlisting in military ventures abroad or
silence the sheiks encouraging them, some officials say Saudi Arabia has
mostly tried to deflect the problem outside its borders.

On September 12, 2001, Crown Prince Abdullah ibn Abdulaziz, the Saudi
leader, and his oil minister Ali Nuaimi decided to break a recent
promise to other OPEC nations to cut oil production. They arranged for
quick delivery of additional nine million barrels of oil to the United
States instead, which helped reduce the price from almost $30 a barrel
before 9-11 to under $20 only weeks later. This was a preemptive gesture
by people with a guilty conscience. They knew that someone, somewhere in
the United States would put two and two together: that whenever there
are Islamic terrorists bringing death, destruction, and havoc to the
non-Muslim world, there are some Saudis lurking in the background,
either as masterminds, or direct participants, or as bankrollers.

All along, the Islamic 'charities' that financed terrorists included
prominent members of the royal family on their boards. Since 1992, one
Saudi charity, the Al Haramin Foundation, has distributed hundreds of
millions of dollars, with money often ending up in extremist coffers.

The United States is still reluctant to read the riot act to the Saudis.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, normally not a mealy-mouthed
man, on a visit to Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of terrorist attacks
appeared strangely evasive on the issue of Saudi funds for Islamic
terror, and admitted that he had not asked the Saudis to freeze the
assets of people and groups linked to Mr. bin Laden, even though the
United States had asked all countries to do so.

Saudi Arabia is an economically and socially dysfunctional society. It
has 18 million citizens (and 6 million foreign workers), growing at over
4 percent a year from 1980 to 1998. The average Saudi family now has
between six and seven children. Per-capita income has collapsed from a
peak of $19,000 in 1981 to $7,300 in 1997. Unemployment is rampant, but
young people don't want the lower-paying jobs held by foreigners. The
government can no longer support the generous social welfare system it
created at the height of the oil boom. From a peak of $227 billion in
1981 oil revenue is down to under $50 billion. The money earned during
the boom was squandered on palaces, corruption, armaments, and foreign
laborers who just sent it back to their own countries. The fabulous flow
of wealth was not used to create a serious industrial base, despite
laughable gestures in this direction. The only expanding industry is
that of Islamic extremism.

The Saudi system is not just tyrannical, it borders on comedy at times.
In 1966, the Vice-President of the Islamic University of Medina
complained that Copernican theory was being taught at Riyadh University.
Three hundred years after the Christian theologians had to concede that
the Earth went around the Sun the geocentric theory was reaffirmed in
the centers of Saudi learning. In 1967 segregation of the sexes at
schools was set at age nine, which was the age for girls to start to
wear the veil. The King was forced to sack the Minister of Information
for 'offensive' TV programs: apparently a cartoon passed the censors in
which Mickey Mouse gave Minnie a little peck. This is a country where
sexual slaves are routinely purchased for harems by the very rich, who
have no qualms about jetting off to Paris (the once-delightful and more
convenient Beirut having been ruined by civil war) for weekends of
recreation they would be beheaded for at home.

The ability of the inherently fanatical and mendacious (as well as
profligate and corrupt) rulers of the desert kingdom to square any
circles at all is entirely due to its oil reserves, which account for up
to one-fifth of all U.S. imports. The Saudis are perfectly aware that
this is their only, albeit enormously powerful trump card, and soon
embarked on a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to try to
restore confidence in the Saudi-American 'special relationship.' They
see America - a country in which the rich generally work in real jobs,
mind you - as decadent and dependent on their precious black goo for its
consumer lifestyle. They see our own corruption as the perfect guarantee
that they will never have to pay the price for their own.

For the time being the Saudis and their co-religionists have no reason
to doubt that the talk about promoting democracy is propaganda for
internal consumption and that the US prefers to deal with autocratic
rulers, who are much easier to bribe. The end result, for now, favors an
oppressive plutocracy without elected representative bodies, light-years
and worlds apart from all that America and the rest of the Western world
hold near and dear. America and the rest of the West urgently need to
set themselves free from the need to pander to Saudi whims, including
the non-existent and unreciprocated 'right' of its government to
bankroll thousands of mosques and Islamic 'cultural centers' around the
world that teach hate and provide the logistic infrastructure to Islamic
terrorism.

Their ability to break free from the Saudi connection is predicated upon
their liberation from Middle Eastern oil imports. That liberation is
possible and necessary. It only requires political will and monetary
investment into the development of new technologies. This is, and has
always been, the crucial prerequisite to the development of a meaningful
anti-terrorist strategy. To plan on any other strategy is to imagine,
with the kind of deal-with-the-devil cynicism that is always too clever
for its own good, that America can find its own long-term good in
propping up fundamentally evil people who hate us just because they are
corrupt enough to satisfy our short-term desires.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

ANTI-JIHAD BULLETIN
JANUARY 29, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk

1.  BOMB SUSPECTS HAD FURTHER PLANS

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/UK-bomb-plot-suspects-had-wider-plans/2
007/01/24/1169518742418.html

Seven Britons accused of plotting to bomb clubs, trains and synagogues
in England planned to take their fight to Pakistan and Afghanistan if
they had succeeded, prosecutors told a court.

'The overall desire was to further the (cause) of jihad (Holy War)
wherever and however it could be achieved,' prosecution lawyer David
Waters said in what police have described as Britain's biggest terrorism
trial since September 11 attacks on the United States.

British forces are fighting the militant Islamist Taliban in
Afghanistan.

The seven are accused of conspiring to bomb high profile targets,
possibly including London's Ministry of Sound nightclub and the huge
Bluewater shopping centre in Kent using bombs made from fertiliser.

The defendants - Anthony Garcia, Jawad Akbar, Omar Khyam, his brother
Shujah Mahmood, Waheed Mahmood, Nabeel Hussain, and Salahuddin Amin -
deny conspiring to cause an explosion 'likely to endanger life'.

Garcia, Khyam and Hussain deny possessing an article for terrorism - the
fertiliser. Khyam and Mahmood deny having aluminium powder, an
ingredient in explosives.

Britain suffered its worst peacetime attack on July 7, 2005, when four
British Islamists blew themselves up on three London underground trains
and a bus, killing 52 people and wounding more than 700. Authorities say
another such attack is wholly possible.

The prosecution said the trial was not a witch-hunt against the
defendants' religious beliefs.

'Of course it would be ludicrous to approach the allegations in a vacuum
and pretend the backdrop or religious or political motivations does not
exist,' Waters said.

'But having acknowledged that it is only a backdrop, what we are
concerned about are allegations of crime.'





2.  CHANNEL FOUR EXPOSE OF TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26543

For last week's 'Dispatches' program on Britain's Channel Four, a
reporter with a hidden camera entered Birmingham's Green Lane mosque
(which has won praise from Britain's Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed) and other
leading mosques in Britain. He found they preached Islamic supremacism,
hatred of Jews and Christians, and the subjugation of women.

The mosques, of course, are in heavy damage-control mode. A press
release at the Green Lane mosque website complains that 'it is extremely
disappointing but not at all surprising that 'Dispatches' has chosen to
portray Muslims in the worst possible light. 'Dispatches' has opted for
sensationalism over substance with total disregard for peaceful
community relations.' And not only that: 'This so-called 'undercover'
investigation merely panders to age-old anti-Muslim prejudices by
employing the time-honoured tradition of cherry picking statements and
presenting them in the most inflammatory manner.'

The statement doesn't address the obvious fact that it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to cherry-pick statements anywhere near as
hateful and inflammatory as those recorded in the Green Lane mosque from
proceedings in any Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist house of
worship.

Among the statements recorded in the Green Lane mosque were these about
women:

'Allah has created the woman - even if she gets a Ph.D. - deficient. Her
intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones
that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal
the one witness of the man.'

'By the age of ten, it becomes an obligation on us to force her to wear
hijab, and if she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her.'

'Men are in charge of women. Wherever he goes she should follow him, and
she shouldn't be allowed leave the house without his permission.'
How inflammatory! How extremist! And how inveterately Qur'anic!

The Muslim holy book declares that a woman's testimony is worth half
that of a man: 'Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are
not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses,
so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her' (Qur'an 2:282).
It also says that men are in charge of women, and that disobedient women
should be beaten: 'Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made
the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their
property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient,
guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom
ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and
scourge them' (4:34).

The same is true of other statements made in the mosque, including these
about Britain and the Islamic state:

'You have to live like a state within a state until you take over.'

'We want the laws of Islam to be practiced, we want to do away with the
man-made laws.'

'Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with living in other than the total
Islamic state.'

'I encourage all of you to be from amongst them, to begin to cultivate
ourselves for the time that is fast approaching where the tables are
going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being
uppermost in strength, and when that happens, people won't get killed -
unjustly.'

'Allah has decreed this thing, that I am going to be dominant. The
dominance of course is a political dominance.'

Such statements have been vividly expressed in the writings of twentieth
century jihad theorists such as the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb and the
Pakistani Syed Abul Ala Maududi. Said Qutb:

It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of
Jahiliyya [the society of unbelievers] which are current in the world or
to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system..Islam cannot
accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah. Either Islam will remain, or
Jahiliyyah; no half-half situation is possible. Command belongs to
Allah, or otherwise to Jahiliyyah; Allah's Shari'a [law] will prevail,
or else people's desires.The foremost duty of Islam is to depose
Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man..

Maududi likewise wrote that non-Muslims have 'absolutely no right to
seize the reins of power in any part of God's earth, nor to direct the
collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived
doctrines.' If they do, 'the believers would be under an obligation to
do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them
live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.'

But Qutb and Maududi did not originate these ideas. They are an
extrapolation of Qur'anic passages such as 9:29, which assumes that
Muslims will wield state power over Jews and Christians, exacting from
them a poll tax (jizya) and making sure that they pay it 'with willing
submission, and feel themselves subdued.' There is no concept in the
Qur'an, Islamic tradition, or Islamic law of non-Muslims living as
equals with Muslims in an Islamic state: Muslims must be in a superior
position. The Muslim prophet Muhammad emphasized this when he told his
followers:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those
who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war.When you meet your enemies who
are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond
to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing
them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you,
accept it from them and desist from fighting against them.If they refuse
to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay,
accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the
tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)

Of course, there are many ways to understand all these passages and
others like them. But the fact that the views expressed by the Muslims
in the Channel Four documentary can be found in the Islamic scriptures
without much effort suggests that the problem is far larger than a few
mosques that were thought to be 'moderate' but turn out to be
'extremist.' It is a problem that is deeply rooted within traditional
Islam, and must be treated as such. Muslims in Britain who sincerely
reject the idea that Islam must be dominant and that Islamic law must be
instituted in Britain, and that women and non-Muslims must be
subjugated, and who accept the idea that non-Muslims and Muslims should
live together as equals on an indefinite basis, should not condemn the
'Dispatches' documentary. Instead, they should welcome it as a
opportunity not only to expel 'extremists' from their ranks, and to
formulate a comprehensive rejection and refutation of their literalist
understanding of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

But so far they are not doing that. Instead, the Muslim Council of
Britain, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom, the
Federation of Student Islamic Societies, and the UK Islamic Mission have
all denounced the program as 'Islamophobic.' None have taken even a
single step to combat the spread of the understanding of Islam depicted
in the show, or to mitigate the elements of Islam that incite to
violence and inculcate Islamic supremacism.

And that itself is very, very telling.







3.  MUSLIM YOUTH REJECTING UK

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007040620,00.html

MORE than 100,000 young UK Muslims hold extremist or anti-British
beliefs, a shock report suggests today.

Tens of thousands think Muslims who switch religions should be punished
by death.

More than a third want Taliban-style Sharia law, which regards women
rape victims as guilty and says adulterers should be killed by stoning.

And more than one in ten of the 16 to 24-year-olds polled 'admire' Osama
bin Laden's al-Qaeda and other terror groups.

The survey was carried out last month for centre-right think tank Policy
Exchange.

Census figures show there are about 320,000 British Muslims in the age
group polled - suggesting 100,000 are rejecting British values and
culture.

The poll found three-quarters think women should cover their whole face
with a veil. Four out of ten plan to send their kids to Islamic-only
schools.

The Policy Exchange report says: 'There is a growing religiosity amongst
the younger generation of Muslims.

'They feel they have less in common with non-Muslims and show a stronger
preference for Islamic schools and Sharia law.'

Security chiefs have warned ministers that Britain is almost certainly
facing another terror strike by home-grown fanatics.

The poll reveals only six per cent of youngsters believe the Muslim
Council of Britain represents their views.

That is a huge blow to Tony Blair who believes the body can play an
important part in improving community relations.







4. THIRD OF YOUNG MUSLIMS IN UK WANT SHARIA LAW

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1153136.0.0.php

A growing minority of young Muslims are inspired by political Islam and
feel they have less in common with non-Muslims than their parents do, a
survey reveals today.

The poll found support for Sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the
veil in public is stronger among young Muslims than their parents.

While the majority of Muslims feel they have as much, if not more, in
common with non-Muslims in Britain than with Muslims abroad, the figure
dropped from 71% of over-55s to 62% among 16 to 24-year-olds, the survey
of more than 1000 Muslims in the UK over the phone and internet for
independent think-tank Policy Exchange found.

The percentage who said they would prefer to send their children to
Islamic state schools increased from 19% for over 55-year-olds to 37% of
those aged 16 to 24.

The number who said they would prefer to live under Sharia law than
British law increased from 17% of over-55s to 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds.

One of Scotland's leading Muslims said he was not surprised by the
survey results.

Bashir Maan, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain,
said: 'The selfish and hypocritical policies practised by George W Bush
and Tony Blair in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East, and
controversies such as Jack Straw's attitude to Muslim women wearing
veils and raids on the homes of Muslims, particularly in England, has
led to the radicalisation of some members of the Muslim community.

The emergence of a strong Muslim identity in Britain is, in part, a
result of multicultural policies implemented since the 1980s which have
emphasised difference at the expense of shared national identity.
Munira Mirza

'It is worrying that such policies are giving fuel to those who would
promote radicalism. We don't want any young people to be radicalised. We
want them to grow up as good Muslims and good citizens of the society
they are living in.'

Munira Mirza, the lead author of the report, said the results suggested
government policy was to blame for sharpening divisions between Muslims
and non-Muslims.

She said: 'The emergence of a strong Muslim identity in Britain is, in
part, a result of multicultural policies implemented since the 1980s
which have emphasised difference at the expense of shared national
identity and divided people along ethnic, religious and cultural lines.'

According to the poll, 74% of 16 to 24-year-olds prefer Muslim women to
choose to wear the hijab compared with only 28% of over 55s.

While 7% of all those surveyed 'admire organisations like al Qaeda that
are prepared to fight the West', the figure increased from 3% of over
55s to 13% among 16 to 24-year-olds.

Ms Mirza said: 'There is clearly a conflict within British Islam between
a majority that accepts the norms of Western democracy and a growing
minority that does not.'

She continued: 'Religiosity among younger Muslims is not about following
their parents' cultural traditions, but rather, their interest in
religion is more politicised.

'Islamist groups have gained influence at local and national level by
playing the politics of identity and demanding for Muslims the right to
be different'.'

The report also found that authorities and some Muslim groups had
exaggerated the problem of Islamophobia, which had fuelled a sense of
victimhood among Muslims.

Despite widespread concerns about Islamophobia, 84% of Muslims believed
they had been treated fairly in British society.

Just over a quarter (28%) believed authorities in Britain had gone 'over
the top' in trying not to offend Muslims.

The poll found 75% believed it was wrong for High Wycombe local council
to ban an advertisement for a Christmas carol service in 2003, and 64%
said Dudley Council in the West Midlands was wrong to have banned all
images of pigs from its offices in 2005 for fear of offending Muslims.




5.  MELANIE PHILLIPS ON LONDONISTAN

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/147
/documentid/3662/history/3,2359,2166,147,3662

That the UK had become, by 2000, the European center for the promotion,
recruitment and financing of Islamic terror and extremism is not
disputed. The debate over how this came to be is ongoing. A bold attempt
to answer the question was made this past summer with the release of the
groundbreaking book Londonistan by Melanie Phillips, an award-winning
journalist at the UK's Daily Mail. On January 16, Phillips spoke to an
audience of more than 250 at a JINSA event in the Detroit suburb of West
Bloomfield.


Londonistan author Melanie Phillips at JINSA event in Michigan.Phillips
said she wrote Londonistan to rouse Britain out of what she argued was a
palpable state of denial over the jihadist 'war' being waged against it.
The story began in 1979 with the Islamic revolution in Iran. It was then
that leading elements within radical Muslim circles began to believe
that restoration of the Islamic caliphate was indeed within their grasp
and set about achieving this goal.

Phillips informed her audience that it took less than two decades for
Britain's transformation into the 'European center for the promotion,
recruitment and financing of Islamic terror and extremism.' Britain
secured this dubious distinction via a perfect storm of two seemingly
disparate developments: a severe relaxation of immigration standards in
the 1980s and 1990s during which the UK received a large influx of
radical Islamists and immigrants susceptible to the message of radical
Islam and a widespread repudiation of the supremacy of British cultural
and social norms. This systematic undermining of the values, laws and
traditions that defined what it meant to be British began in the 1980s
and Islamist elements moved eagerly and rapidly into the resulting
social and cultural vacuum.

Phillips cited some alarming facts to illustrate the rise of
fundamentalist Islam in the UK:

* London is home to al-Qaeda's European headquarters.

* Sixty percent of British Muslims would like sharia law to be
established in Great Britain.

* Numerous individuals residing in the UK would face arrest in their
birth countries on charges of being a threat to the state.

* The UK's domestic security services are currently tracking 1,600
individual terrorists who have already expressed a willingness to die
for their cause.

* The UK's domestic security services discovered more than 30 plots to
attack in Britain using dirty bombs or other radiological devices.

* The UK's domestic security services currently monitor 200
organizations in Britain that have been deemed terrorist threats to
British citizens.

Despite these facts, many Britons have convinced themselves that
terrorist attacks in the UK are a reaction to anti-Muslim bias, Phillips
contended. The terrorist elements in Britain are explained as
disaffected youths driven to violence by racism and poverty. Such
assertions are ludicrous, Phillips declared. The London subway bombers
were young, British-born men well integrated into their surrounding
communities. Their economic status ranged from solidly middle class to
wealthy.

The reason such Islamic extremists engage in acts of terrorism is quite
simply that 'terror works,' Phillips believes. This was, in fact, the
reason offered by Dhiran Barot, a British citizen, upon his 2004 arrest
in England for plotting with at least two other British citizens to
attack financial institutions in New York, New Jersey and Washington,
DC.

The state of denial evident in Britain extends to Western Europe, the
United States and Israel. 'Defeatism, appeasement and cultural collapse
are at the root of the problem,' Phillips observed. Traditional British
values have been hollowed out and in their places fundamentalist Islam
took up residence. As a result, multiculturalism is seen as more
legitimate than national identity and supranational organizations like
the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights are seen as
more legitimate than British governing bodies. So, Phillips said, terror
victims blame themselves and/or try to explain away terrorist behavior
as aberrant, random acts perpetrated by 'copy cats' emulating what they
see going on in other parts of the world. A '1930s-style appeasement' is
the result where logic is turned on its head as the British public
desperately latches onto specious explanations for these horrific
events.

Phillips said that many in the UK contend that once the
Israel-Palestinian impasse is settled, Islamist terror will cease to
exist. She described how the entirety of Britain's non-Muslim population
is divided and that even among those who acknowledge the threat posed by
jihadist Islam, most prefer to stay silent. Even in 'Middle Britain,'
the equivalent of the American 'red states,' isolationism is seen as the
most effective response to jihadi terror.

Not all Muslims are involved in terrorism, Phillips took great pains to
emphasize. She pointed out that many of the most troublesome Muslim
immigrants to the UK were in fact expelled from their countries of
origin including Saudi Arabia because of their radicalism. Phillips
pointed out that the more moderate countries with Muslim majorities
understand the dangers posed by jihadist elements in their population
better than Britons. They recognize, for example, women who wear the
veil are making a political statement that they are separate from
society. While many in Great Britain wring their hands over whether or
not to ban veils in certain circumstances, Tunisia and Turkey have
already done so, she noted.

Phillips did find cause for hope, however. The West, including Great
Britain, is waking up slowly to the threat, she believes. The watershed
moment was not the infamous July 7, 2005 bombings but the foiled
transatlantic plot to blow up 12 airliners en route to the United States
from Britain in August 2006. Britons could no longer ignore the fact
that this plan was far too sophisticated to have been hatched by
disaffected youths enraged by their lot in life. The plot forced the
public to confront the reality that homegrown terror attacks were not
random acts of violence, but rather a war against the country. Phillips
related that days after the foiled airliner plot, 38 'moderate' Muslim
groups in the UK demanded that the government alter its foreign policy
immediately as Britain's Iraq and Israel policies were encouraging
terrorist attacks. The British public responded to the veiled threat
with deserved outrage.

Phillips, who was moved to cautious optimism by this 'slow change toward
sanity' on the part of her country, closed her address by recounting a
December 2006 statement by Prime Minister Tony Blair: 'No distinctive
culture or religion supersedes our duty to be part of an integrated
United Kingdom.'





6. REPORT ON CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS CONFERENCE IN LONDON

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=7627

Daniel Pipes, columnist, scholar of Middle Eastern history,
counter-terrorism expert, founder of both the Middle East Forum
(publishing the Middle East Quarterly) and Campus Watch, an author of 14
books, is well known in the US and the blogosphere, where he maintains
his own weblog. Though not against Muslims, Pipes has been critical of
radical Islam and its incompatibility with democratic values.

On April 4, 2006, Dr Pipes was invited by Ken Livingstone, left-wing
mayor of London, to attend a conference on the subject of the 'Clash of
Civilizations'. Popularized by Samuel Huntington in 1993 and again in a
book of the same name in 1996, the notion of a clash of civilizations
has become a popular means of explaining and perceiving the modern
world, particularly after 9/11.

The office of the Mayor of London advertised the conference, which was
to be held on January 20, 2007. The event was to last from 10 am to 8
pm, with a host of speakers at various seminars. The event went ahead,
with all tickets sold, and most of the planned speakers showed up.

Livingstone's debate with Dr Pipes was billed as the 'main debate'.
Pipes had Douglas Murray of the Social Affairs Unit as is co-speaker,
and Livingstone had Salma Yaqoob as his partner. This debate was chaired
by Gavin Esler, a host of BBC's Newsnight current affairs show. Despite
the advance publicity, the conference was not given one column inch of
coverage in any of Britain's mainstream press outlets. The BBC has
nothing on its website, and nothing was mentioned on national TV news.

The only sources of information on how the debate progressed comes from
weblogs. The Muslim Council of Britain fielded their press spokesman
Inayat Bunglawala to Seminar E (Enlightenment values and modern society)
and their secretary general Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari to Seminar A (Is
Britain becoming more segregated?), yet MCB could only place a brief
mention of the event on their website. Martin Bright, political editor
of the New Statesman, took part in Seminar G (Is there an Islamic
threat?), but nothing is mentioned on the NS website or on his weblog.
The Mayor of London's office made no mention of the conference after it
had wound up, not even to blandly conclude that 'a good time was had by
all' or to thank those who participated.

The only sources available - mostly blogs - conclude that in the main
debate between Pipes and Livingstone, entitled 'A World Civilization or
a Clash of Civilizations', Dr Pipes was the victor. Even a site with a
left-wing bias, such as Harry's Place and Pickled Politics appeared
favorable to Daniel Pipes' skills in presentation. The latter blog
described Livingstone's argument as 'a rambly sort of speech without
structure'. The same account described Pipes's performance thus:
'...despite my distaste for his politics, was much more structured, well
thought-out and argued.....his central point was this - there isn't a
Clash of Civilisations as much as a Clash of Civilisations v Barbarism.'

The conference is reported upon by Oliver Kamm of the Times who took
part in Seminar E (Enlightenment Values and modern society) and Seminar
K (Democratic Solutions in the Middle East). Though Kamm makes wry
observations of the two seminars in which he participated, and also the
participants, such as Inayat Bunglawala and Linda Bellos, he does not
deal with the Pipes and Murray v Livingstone and Yaqoob debate.

Daniel Pipes writes of the event having taken place, but perhaps through
personal modesty he does not give away details of the progression of
arguments. Instead, he defers to other blogsites where witnesses have
submitted their own accounts.

Sharon Chadha discussed the main debate of the conference and noted that
Livingstone, who opened the debate, bemoaned the Cold War, describing it
as a 'sinister plot designed by a small group of Americans who were
intent on world domination.' She wrote: 'If Mayor Livingstone seemed
intent on promoting London, and Britain in general as a multicultural
success story, Dr. Pipes countered that because so many Britons have
participated in terror plots around the world, citing some 15 instances,
the reality was the opposite: One could even make the case that because
of this history, Britain should be added to the list of state sponsors
of terrorism.'

As described by 'Gandalf' at Up Pompeii, Pipes had compared the tensions
between Islam and the West to a war. In the case of Vietnam, the war had
been abandoned by Americans, not 'lost'. Gandalf states: 'Dr Pipes went
on to say how the UK was now the biggest terror threat to the US because
of Muslims in the UK he cited Richard Reid and the UK connections in the
9/11 atrocity, this brought a standing ovation from the supporters of Dr
Pipes because they recognised the damage that was being done to UK-US
relations because of the presence of these people in the UK.'

'Maybe I have taken a rather simplistic view and in interpretation of
what Dr Pipes said, I do not think for one minute that Dr Pipes is
suggesting that we all sit back and wait for Islam to give up, Islam has
to be made to give up and that, in my opinion is the message that Dr
Pipes was giving.'

David Pryce-Jones in the National Review states: 'Carefully he (Dr
Pipes) distinguished the religion of Islam from Islamism, a totalitarian
ideology with which there could be no compromise. He was looking for
victory over it. He and his seconder, Douglas Murray, a brilliant young
British intellectual, made the point that moderate Muslims had to be
supported against extremist Islamists. And suddenly their arguments
began to shift the audience away from Livingstone, and to attract a lot
of applause. The war on terror has a long way still to go, but
victorious battles like this one in a debating hall may mean fewer, or
even no, future battles in the field or on the streets.'

Livingstone's argument is the most hard to decipher. Jonathan Hoffman on
Adloyada writes of the fact that Ken Livingstone admitted to meeting
with leaders of the IRA when he was head of the Greater London Council,
and spoke of his meeting with the Islamist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the
'spiritual leader' of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hoffman writes: 'He does not agree with the Caliphate but is prepared to
speak to Qaradawi because he represents 'the future of Islam'. Here he
quoted Max Hastings who apparently said that there was no point in
studying any culture except that of Europe . The Chief Rabbi had spoken
about a 'tsunami of anti-Semitism in Europe' but here in London it had
declined. Ken's peroration followed. The US had been able to vanquish
Communism because of its superior economic power. But now the US was
increasingly having to share economic power with China and increasingly
India . He linked this back to multiculturalism and the need to
appreciate all cultures.'

Whether or not Qaradawi represents the 'future of Islam', he certainly
represents a mentality present in contemporary Islam. His support for
the murder of civilians in Israel seems to be a view held within many
strands of the Muslim international community. Livingstone invited
Qaradawi to London in 2004. He has even compared the Islamist leader to
Pope John XXIII, who introduced the reforms of Vatican II, describing
Qaradawi as 'An absolutely sane Islamist'. Livingstone said in 2005: 'Of
all the Muslim leaders in the world today, Sheikh Qaradawi is the most
powerfully progressive force for change and for engaging Islam with
western values. I think his is very similar to the position of Pope John
XXIII.'

In the debate, Douglas Murray took Livingstone to task for his support
of Qaradawi, stating that the Islamist sheikh was not the sort of Muslim
the West should be cultivating. Murray, aged only 27, received several
ovations during his speech, which was said to be delivered with force.

Livingstone's choice of partner on the rostrum, Salma Yaqoob, was hardly
likely to raise the level of intellectual debate. Yaqoob is a member of
Birmingham City Council, and belongs to the 'Respect' party, whose most
famous (infamous?) representative is George Galloway, the apologist for
Saddam Hussain. Her inability to construct an argument, even in writing,
can be evidenced here.

Most comments on the debate note that Yaqoob, who supports the
introduction of Sharia law, excused the attacks of 9/11 and 7/7 by
claiming they were provoked by American (and British) actions in the
Muslim world. She said of this: 'Do you expect us not to fight back?'
Gandalf stated that she compared the Coalition forces to Crusaders and
claimed the US only invaded Iraq in the pursuit of oil. As Gandalf
writes: 'Dr Pipes corrected her on this point and she did not reply to
his statement. This ladies (sic) attitude was venomous and hateful and I
am certain that I was not the only one that picked up on that.'

Salma Chadha notes that: 'If Mayor Livingstone did not elect to call his
invited guest Dr. Pipes a racist or an Islamophobe himself, his debate
partner, Councillor Salma Yaqoob of Birmingham, had no trouble doing so,
even if this meant distorting the American scholar's remarks and
extensive written record. For example, Councillor Yaqoob identified Dr.
Pipes as a presidential advisor and proponent of the Bush
administration's Iraq policy, assertions that as Dr. Pipes pointed out,
have no basis in fact.'

Ms Chadha described Yaqoob's demeanor as 'shrill, demagogic'. Hoffman
states: 'Predictably she attacked Pipes for evading 'the history of
Western colonialism in the Middle East' and 'the attempt of the US
neocons to remold the Middle East in their own image'.'

Ami, writing on Harry's Place notes that in the 'question and answer'
session, Ken Livingstone 'got the biggest groan of the day, when he
answered a question about supporting moderate Muslims by saying he
supported the progressive Qaradawi, the strongest force for
modernisation in Islam today. He said: I don't agree with him on
homosexuality, but he is the future! Up till then, his main address had
been very judicious and politic: you could agree with parts, disagree
with much, but still entertain his arguments. Now he descended into the
loony Ken persisting in defending the indefensible. This elicited
forceful responses from Pipes and others about what Qaradawi stands
for.'

During questions, Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB, not known for judicious
comments, 'challenged Pipes for opposing Islamicism even if it used
lawful means of non violent Islamification. What kind of democracy was
that, he yelled.' To which Pipes responded that 'A totalitarian movement
uses different means to reach power, vide Hitler. Hitler achieved office
through the ballot box, not that he got the support of the majority of
the electorate.'

Beila Rabinowitz and William A. Mayer at Pipeline News state: 'In stark
contrast to Pipes and Murray, the London Mayor's speech was standard
leftist boilerplate, alleging the Cold War was part and parcel of the
United States' hegemonistic designs for dominion over all and in what
must have represented a Stalinist flashback moment for many in the
audience, actually blaming America for victimizing the Soviet Union. He
then expanded his comments into a general attack on Western values,
though he was careful to delimit his espoused multiculturalism, cutting
short of endorsing the practice of cannibalism.'

At the end of the debate, Ms Chadha states: 'Gavin Esler, the BBC
newsman who chaired the panel, ended the debate by quipping that he
hoped press coverage of the event would go beyond the obvious headline
that Mayor Livingstone had finally taken a stand against cannibalism.'

The press coverage was non-existent. An event which, during an entire
day, had brought together representatives from the British media and
well-known Muslims, such as Tariq Ramadan (speaker at Seminar G - Is
there an Islamic threat?) should surely have merited some comment, even
if only a cursory mention. An estimated 5,000 people were in attendance,
including 150 representatives from the media, but the press, including
the Muslim press, ignored the event.

According to the blogsite Solomonia: 'Pipes was magnificent at the
Conference. Daniel went into the lion's den and not only did he survive,
he pulverised the lion.'

The timing of the opening debate, the morning of a Saturday, has been
noted by commenters, and also some of those attending the event at the
Queen Elizabeth II Conference Center, seemed designed to exclude Jewish
people from attending the Livingstone/Pipes clash.

Perhaps the last word should be reserved for Daniel Pipes himself:
'Despite the many journalists and video cameras, and despite the GLA
having recorded and simultaneously transcribed the event, and despite
two and a half days having passed since it took place, there has been
'quite to my surprise' not a single media account of the debate, nor a
video made available, nor a transcript..... it would seem that the
mayor's supporters took a pass on reporting the event.'

The claim by Dr. Pipes that the UK is now the biggest terror threat to
the US because of (radical) Muslims in the UK is perhaps the most
significant and far-reaching observation from the debate. Britain
refuses to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, and has allowed the activists of the
now-disbanded group Al-Muhajiroun to continue openly campaigning against
democracy and promoting terror. These individuals are the wet-nurses of
terrorism. Pipes cited Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, who was
indoctrinated by Al-Muhajiroun.

As culpable as the Islamist radicals who thrive in Britain are the
government officials and civil servants from MI6 and the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. These are actively engaged in a policy of 'Engaging
With the Islamic World'.

The FCO's 'Engaging with the Islamic World Group (EIWG)' was founded in
2003, while Al-Muhajiroun was still active. With an annual budget of
$15.8 million, this group, headed by 26-year old Mockbul Ali, a former
student radical, actively promotes dialogue with radicals such as
Qaradawi. Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the godfather of Hizb ut-Tahrir's
British chapter, and spiritual ideologue of Al-Muhajiroun, was allowed
openly to preach radicalism and hate for 20 years in Britain. Not once
was he taken to court. Radical Islamists thrive in Britain, and are
threatening the British/American 'special relationship'. But they do
this solely because the UK authorities allow them to.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi all!!

Do you fit the subject title?? I'm a PhD student researching the anti-
war movement and the diversity of its supporters, with the aim of
challenging the stereotype of it being totally left-dominated. I want
to give a voice to other members who perhaps see themselves as
breaking the mould in some way. If this is you then please do get in
touch with me, whatever your views/opinions/outlook, I would love to
hear what you have got to say, you can e-mail me at
npitimson@...
  Please do pass this message on to anyone else you know who may be
interested.

Thanks very much and look forward to perhaps chatting to some of you
soon!

All the best
Natalie

TELL ENGLISH NATIONAL BALLET FUNDERS TO LEAVE SIMONE CLARKE ALONE!

Dear Patriot:

As you can read in the Time story below, some of the financial backers
of the English National Ballet seem to be considering pulling their
funding over prima ballerina Simone Clarke's membership in the British
National Party.

Please write to these corporate sponsors and tell them an artist's
political views are irrelevant.  (Be polite, and don't waste time
debating the merits of the BNP.  This is about freedom, not the party.)

The contact addresses are below.  It's OK to write one message over and
over, but please send them separately, not with cc:

Thanks!

THE LIST:

The Arts Council: enquiries@...
Capezio: capeziodanceeu@...
Chanel: chaneluk@...
CMS Cameron McKenna: charles.dalton-holmes@...
Investec: info@...
Linklaters: rupert.winlaw@...
The Dorchester Hotel: info@...
Sky TV (Artsworld): corp.responsibility@... (Sky TV) AND
alyssa.bonic@... (Artsworld channel)
Freed of London: info@...
British Airways: media.relations@...
Howrey LLP: tillc@...
The Foyle Foundation: info@...
Rudolf Nureyev Foundation:  contact@...
The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund:
Daniel.Woolford@...
Garfield Weston Foundation: http://www.garfieldweston.org/contact


NEWS STORY:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6255195.stm
Bovver boots and ballerinas
By Dominic Casciani
BBC News community affairs

Good vocal chords: Not what theatre-goers were expecting

British far-right politics has changed a bit in recent years. Out have
gone the bovver-booted bomber-jacketed skinheads. In have come the
business suits and a ballerina. And so, in the unlikeliest of turns, a
dozen or so anti-racism protesters turned their foghorn vocal chords
away from their familiar haunts to turn up on the steps of the Coliseum,
the home of the English National Ballet in London's West End.

Why? Because Simone Clarke, principal dancer with the ballet and the
lead in the current run of Giselle, is a British National Party member.

"Ballet should be Nazi free! Stop the fascist BNP! Ballet not bigotry!
Stop the fascist BNP!" came the chants.

Delicately poised: Are Ms Clarke's politics compatible with her job?
Some ballet-goers threw quizzical looks - others occasionally tutted.
"Pathetic," mouthed one well-dressed woman to her companion as she
entered the theatre. This was a rare meeting of completely different
worlds.

But Ms Clarke, according to a glowing interview on her own website, is
that "rarest of human beings". The interviewer wasn't wrong.

Born in Leeds, Simone Clarke has battled to the top of her profession -
a profession where the key skills are in such high demand that employers
search the globe for the right person. Eight of the 10 principals with
the English National Ballet were born abroad. Ms Clarke's love interest
in Giselle is played by Russian-born Dmitri Gruzdyez.

And then there is her real love interest: Her partner, Yat Sen-Chang,
also an ENB principal dancer, is a Cuban of Chinese extraction.

So while this world of high arts and even higher jumps may be insulated
from the gritty realities of hard-nosed politics, it is hardly short of
experience when it comes international migration.

All of which has made Ms Clarke's position all the more interesting, not
least because she has defended her views, following her naming by the
Guardian newspaper.

'Concerned but not racist'

In an interview with the Mail on Sunday, the dancer said the BNP was the
only party "willing to take a stand" against uncontrolled immigration.
Her partner had encouraged her to join up, she said - so talk of racism
was "silly".

And on and on: Two hours of chanting
"I will be known as the BNP Ballerina. I think that will stick with me
for life. I don't regret anything." The ENB has come under pressure to
sack Ms Clarke, but has said that her politics is a private matter and
it has not mandate to comment on her views. But this didn't wash with
protesters like Lee Billingham of Love Music Hate Racism. "It's just not
that simple," he said taking a break from leafleting passers-by. "It's
not that there has just been some kind of undercover reporters' expose.

"She has reiterated her views in the papers. The ENB is a publicly
funded arts body. It gets our money. It has a duty to promote diversity
and equality.

"The BNP is not a normal political party. Anyone who takes time to look
at it knows that. We need to draw a line in the sand."

So what did the punters make of it all?
Vincent, a veteran ballet-goer and Soho resident, said he found the BNP
"rather disgusting people" - but their politics was "entirely
irrelevant" to the performance.

"She can have all the views she wants and I can have mine. That is the
nature of a free democracy," he said. "She's up there as a professional
dancer and as long as she keeps to that on stage, I have no objections.

"Everybody would have forgotten about her unfortunate politics had it
not been for this demonstration. Now the BNP are getting publicity,
which is hardly useful." Most people shared his view.

Walk-out
But Judy Chan, 62, of Harlow walked out - possibly the only person to do
so - on discovering more about Ms Clarke. She handed her ticket back to
ENB staff and, to the complete surprise of the protesters, offered to
hand out leaflets.

Judy Chan: Handed in her ticket, walked out
"The BNP are a fascist movement and fascists have cost the world dear,"
she said. "I grew up in the aftermath of the war and saw what fascism
had done to the world - millions dead, entire countries destroyed.

"This would have only been the second ballet I have gone to and I don't
have that much money. But I cannot sit there and clap that woman knowing
what I now know.

"If she is a ballerina, she should be a fairly sophisticated person. And
if she cannot or will not distinguish between normal politics and
fascism then I don't want to watch her." And then things took an even
more surreal turn.

BNP outing
Richard Barnbrook, the leader of the BNP in Barking and Dagenham turned
up with some less-than-balletic looking minders.

Protesters surged and chants grew louder. Police led Mr Barnbrook away
for his own safety. Busting stereotypes, Mr Barnbrook told reporters he
was hoping to enjoy an afternoon at the ballet. That enjoyment was later
disrupted when two protesters began chanting mid-performance.

Richard Barnbrook: BNP outing to the ballet
"I don't normally go to the ballet but I'm going to support Simone
Clarke," he said. "I'm supporting her freedom of expression."

"They are trying to get her sacked for one simple reason: her standing
up for common sense and saying she doesn't support the government.

So what did he think of her relationship with Mr Sen-Chang? "I'm not
opposed to mixed marriages but children [of these relationships] are
washing out the identity of this country's indigenous people. That's my
view. It's not the party's view." Mr Barnbrook did not appear to be
aware that Ms Clarke and Mr Sen-Chang have a child. In the history of
modern British politics, Ms Clarke's story may not appear that
important. But her views are of immense value to the BNP itself.

Nick Griffin, the BNP's leader, has one aim. For years, the British
far-right looked enviously at the strides made by Jean Marie Le Pen's
National Front in France. In 2002, Le Pen reached the final Presidential
run-off.

Mr Griffin's aim is to transform the BNP into a similar party, an
organisation that people regard as the acceptable face of nationalism,
standing up for "ordinary" British people. Having a ballerina in their
ranks is a measure of how perceptions of his party have changed.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BNP PUBLIC SERVICES BULLETIN
JANUARY 8, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk




1. NHS SCANDAL AS 37,000 JOBS GO

http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=995

LABOUR'S catastrophic mishandling of the NHS is laid
bare in a secret Government memo predicting a
crippling shortage of nurses, paltry payrises, posts
axed and strikes.

Politicians, medical bodies and unions said the leaked
document showed that the Government's management of
the health service is a 'fiasco.'

At least 37,000 posts are now thought to be in danger
this year alone as the Government desperately seeks to
lower the NHS wages bill with a 2.7 per cent cut in
the workforce.

And just weeks after health secretary Patricia Hewitt
said there were too many nurses in the NHS - which led
to a raft of job cuts - officials warned there will
now be a mass shortage of nurses by 2010.

To make matters worse, the cash crisis means ministers
may refuse proper payrises for staff which the
document says could trigger a strike.

And despite spending millions of pounds of taxpayers'
cash on training medics to become consultants, the NHS
will be too cash-strapped to pay more than 3,000 of
them.

The leaked document, which was given to the Health
Service Journal, shows that by 2010 there will be:

* A shortage of 14,000 nurses.

* A shortage of 1,200 GP’s and 1,100 junior doctors.

* Some 3,200 hospital consultant positions shelved
because the NHS will not be able to pay them.

* An excess of 16,200 health professionals and
technicians.

The draft strategy also shows the Government intends
to make the job security of being an NHS employee a
thing of the past, with officials admitting
unemployment can be used to 'create a downward
pressure on wages'.

The document provoked a furious backlash from the
health industry which said the Government had lost
control of the NHS.

Janet Davies, for the Royal College of Nursing, was
among those who slammed ministers for allowing posts
to be axed by debt-ridden trusts.

'Just a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State for
Health told MPs that the NHS had employed too many
nurses but now her department have evidence predicting
a shortage of 14,000 nurses within the next four
years,' she said.

'And all this at a time when nurses are being made
redundant, newly qualified nurses can’t find work and
thousands of NHS posts are being lost up and down the
country.'

Doctors’ leaders were equally furious, complaining
that targets on waiting times had only been met by
employing more hospital consultants to carry out the
work.

Refusing to employ doctors in the top positions after
some of these targets have been achieved was 'absurd'.

Dr Jonathan Fielden, Chairman of the BMA’s
consultants’ committee said: 'It is absurd to suggest
that the NHS needs fewer hospital consultants.

'To suggest that there should be fewer consultants,
and of a lower grade, will destroy the gold standard
of specialist care that patients rightly deserve.

'If these really are the views of Department of Health
advisors, then they are seriously out of touch with
the NHS.

'They seem determined to destroy the ethos and values
of the NHS, which the profession and patients cherish
so dearly, and are so essential to its survival.'

The documents, written shortly before Christmas,
suggest that one solution to the current crisis would
be to prevent young doctors becoming consultants.

Instead a cheaper grade of staff, called a
'sub-consultant,' would be created.

It also suggests that hospital consultants, who were
given massive pay rises by the Government in 2005
which has caused much of the cash-flow problem, should
now receive just a one per cent rise.

Other NHS staff could receive a 'backloaded' payrise
which would not provide the full increase they expect
for three years.

And some nurses could have their salaries cut by
creating 'local' pay scales which would see nurses
paid according to the relative wealth of the area in
which they worked.

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said that the
number of posts being lost in the NHS could be far
greater than previously thought.

“After Ministers rubbished claims of 20,000 job
losses, they now predict almost twice as many to go
this year,' he said.

'This latest fiasco in workforce planning is the
bleakest possible start to 2007 for the NHS.

“The financial crisis is now driving Government
policy. By cynically using the misery of unemployment
to cut pay in the NHS, Labour ministers are making
hard-working doctors and nurses pay for Governmental
incompetence. The effect on morale will be dire.

“NHS resources, and the responsibility for spending
them, need to be given to frontline staff so that they
can build a more effective NHS which responds to the
needs of its staff as well as to the needs of
patients.

'We can never again allow such a tragic failure of
central planning.”

A Department of Health spokesman said the NHS had to
accept that change was ahead.

'The NHS is at a turning point. In the past few years
the Government has invested huge amounts of money,
many more doctors and nurses have been employed,
waiting times have been cut dramatically and patient
care has improved.

'Over the next few years the NHS needs to consolidate
improvements in patient care, reduce waiting times to
a maximum of 18 weeks, respond to patient demand for
care closer to home and to become more efficient in
its use of resources.

'At the same time, growth in NHS funding will return
to more usual levels and the numbers of staff employed
by the NHS will stabilise.

'This work is at an early stage, and the ideas in the
paper are very much what any health expert would be
expecting the department to be considering.

'We have already been in discussion with unions and
other partners on the issues and we will of course
consult with stakeholders as the thinking develops.
Some of these ideas will be dropped and some will
become policy.'

* What do YOU think? Is the Government wrecking the
NHS? Comment NOW at Have Your Say.






2.  HEALTH TOURISTS MAY DENY NHS PATIENTS KIDNEYS

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2534812,00.html

Health tourists are receiving free National Health Service kidney
treatment
worth about £30,000 a year, and potentially competing with British
patients
for scarce transplants, according to new data.

The information, released under the Freedom of Information Act, shows
that
one hospital is spending up to £1m a year on dialysis for nearly 40
non-British residents; another has placed two asylum seekers on its
waiting
list for transplants and a third has recovered only 2% of its costs from
overseas patients.

Doctors and patient groups say the NHS is struggling to provide kidney
dialysis for British patients and is ill-equipped to cope with the extra
demand.

They warned of an acute moral dilemma as doctors balance their
overriding
responsibility to help those in greatest need with the fact that the
patient
may not be legally entitled to treatment.

There are fears some foreign patients, so-called “health tourists”, may
travel to Britain to take advantage of free NHS care.

Dr Jonathan Kwan, head of renal services at Epsom and St Helier
hospitals
trust in Surrey, said: “Non-UK residents are putting pressure on the
system,
which is already under too much pressure.”

Kwan said British patients risked losing out to those from overseas who
needed treatment more urgently. “Patients waiting for dialysis may be
displaced by a clinically urgent case. Doctors try to prioritise the
urgent
cases irrespective of residency status.”

There are a record 6,000 patients on the kidney transplant waiting list,
with about 400 dying each year in Britain before an organ becomes
available.
Patient groups say some British sufferers are forced by a lack of
dialysis
machines to receive treatment at night.

While most health tourists seek one-off operations, patients suffering
from
kidney failure require dialysis three times a week for life unless given
a
transplant.

According to the figures, Barts and The London NHS Trust, which covers
two
of the largest hospitals in the capital, is providing 37 non-UK
residents
and an extra 14 asylum seekers with dialysis.

Two asylum seekers are on the kidney transplant waiting list at the
Royal
Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust in Reading.

Although trusts may try to invoice non-UK residents for treatment, they
usually recover only a fraction of the cost.

Asylum seekers are entitled to free treatment while their case is being
considered.

In the last financial year St George’s hospital in south London spent
about
£100,000 on dialysis for overseas patients but has recovered only
£2,100.

Timothy Statham, chief executive of The National Kidney Federation,
said:
“Capacity is at breaking point,” he said. “We have very ill British]
patients needing to dialyse through the night because there is not
sufficient capacity.

Some patients may come from abroad because dialysis was not available in
their country. We seem to be offering a world health service.”





3. EU BRAINWASHING IN SCHOOLS

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID
=1953121

THE EU has been accused of using underhand means in the classroom to try
to
'brainwash' British children into becoming enthusiastic supporters of
the
European project.

A new teaching pack on the EU has been introduced for use in Key Stage 3
and
4 'citizenship' classes that claims to offer a balanced view of the
organisation and its role.

The taxpayer-funded materials - available to schools in bulk and at no
cost
from the European Parliament's UK office - hail the effectiveness of EU
legislation on everything from smoking and workers' rights to
genetically
modified organisms and food labelling.

But Eurosceptics were up in arms last night about elements of the lesson
notes and pupil worksheets, which guide teachers and pupils in
'de-bunking'
the views of a man who is critical of a lack of democracy in the EU.

The UK Independence Party, which blew the whistle on the pack, also
attacked
the way the Eurosceptic character featured in the pupil worksheets -
'Portsmouth plumber Charlie Bolton' - is an ageing, white man who
contrasts
with other young, smiling, fresh-faced people.

Below a chart showing how the various institutions of the EU, such as
the
European Parliament and European Commission, interact, Charlie Bolton
says:
'Europe - it's just faceless bureaucrats - none of them elected.

'And they impose their laws on us from Brussels whenever they fancy. All
that red tape to make our lives harder.'

It then guides pupils to reject the notion that the EU is
anti-democratic by
reminding them of the elected European Parliament.

'Do you agree with Charlie? What does the flow chart tell you about how
laws
are made?' it asks.

The teacher is also instructed to show pupils how to counter his
argument
and to lead the pupils to conclude that he is wrong and that the EU is
democratic.

The lesson plan reads: 'Discuss Charlie Bolton's attitude to EU
legislation.
If Charlie knew that the Members of the European Parliament are elected
and
that the Council of Ministers represents our governments, do the
students
think that he would change his mind?'

Yorkshire's UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom hit out last night at the pack,
branding
it 'bias and propaganda, masquerading as neutral fact'.

'At a time when the Government has been downplaying Britain's history
and
political traditions in our schools, taxpayers are instead forced to pay
for
our children to learn EU systems,' he said.

'Given that up to 75 per cent of our laws are now made in Brussels, I
suppose it does make some sense, but I am sure that most parents would
want
their children to learn our political systems and institutions rather
those
that are being imposed upon us.

'It is obvious that the EU has given up on persuading the grown ups, so
now
they have started on the children.'

Shipley's Tory MP Philip Davies, spokesman for the Better Off Out
campaign,
added: 'The EU gets more like the Soviet Union every day when it resorts
to
brainwashing children.

'All it does is confirm my worst fears.

'But it's not just Charlie Bolton who's sick of the EU - opinion polls
show
that more and more people are fed up with membership and now a majority
of
businesses are against it.

'It smacks of utter desperation on their part because they know they've
been
rumbled.'

The European Parliament insists that the pack is impartial and that it
helps
pupils make their own minds up about the EU.

'The resources have been designed to offer a balanced introduction to
the
European Union and the European Parliament, to encourage students to
take
part in discussion and to form their own view on the subjects covered in
the
resources,' say the officials responsible for the pack.







4.  EU FORCES AMBULANCES TO WAIT FOR TEA

http://www.brighousetoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=986&ArticleI
D=19

Ambulance crews in Brighouse could be forced to finish their tea breaks
before turning out on an emergency call thanks to new EU rules.

Staff working at ambulance stations in West Yorkshire are among those
who
will be affected by the changes which staff have described as 'madness'.
If
paramedics receive a call to a road traffic accident or someone taken
ill at
their home the new rules mean they are officially supposed to complete
their
meal break before responding to the emergency call.

Paramedics in other parts of the country where the new ruling has been
adopted have warned lives will be lost.

In some parts of the country ambulance services have opted out of the
European Working Time Directive that enforces breaks. If a major
accident
happened outside an ambulance station and staff were on the first part
of
their meal break it would technically mean they could not be asked to
help.

Operations director for Yorkshire Ambulance Service, John Darley, said a
letter was sent out to all front line staff at the beginning of December
informing them of changes to rotas and meal breaks.

'These changes are aimed at unifying the staff in North, East, South and
West Yorkshire who joined together on July 1, 2006 when Yorkshire
Ambulance
Service - YAS was formed.

'Only West and South Yorkshire staff will be affected by the rota or
meal
break changes - with a protected meal break being introduced for the
first
time in West Yorkshire. Staff in North and East Yorkshire will continue
with
their current rota and meal break arrangements,' he said.

But John Durkin, GMB branch secretary for YAS, said the aim of the
ambulance
service was to save lives and he felt professionalism would outweigh the
new
ruling.

'Brighouse is very fortunate to have professional staff whose main aim
is to
help people,' said Mr Durkin.

He said the meal break issue was among other changes currently being
discussed.
Just days before Christmas hundreds of ambulance workers were warned of
possible redundancies in the Yorkshire area.

Around 400 staff working for YAS were told of changes that were being
made
to ensure a more efficient service. But Mr Durkin said the changes would
have a knock on effect on patient care. He criticised the service for
its
'insensitive'
handling of the situation which he said had been done without any
consultation.
'The staff who are affected back up the front line workers. It will
affect
patient care,' he said.




5. WE WANT OUR BUSES BACK

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2007/468/index.html?id=np4.htm

We Want Our Buses Back (WWOBB) campaigners will be on the march again in
Sheffield, on Saturday 6 January, protesting against bus fare rises. The
main South Yorkshire operator, First, are increasing fares by as much as
14% on the Day Saver - after four rounds of fare rises already in
2004-05.
Alistair Tice Sheffield

It's not just in Sheffield. Since Thatcher's de-regulation of the bus
industry in 1987, fares have gone up in real terms by around 50%
nationally and by nearly 100% in the metropolitan areas!

This latest increase was announced in December, the same month that the
government published its proposals for bus services - ironically
entitled 'Putting Passengers First'.

The only policy that New Labour puts first is: 'This has nothing to do
with nationalisation. The bus industry will remain privately owned.'
(Page 34 of the proposal document).

This reassurance to the 'Big Five' bus companies (First, Stagecoach,
Arriva, National Express and Go-Ahead) that monopolise 80% of services,
comes after 33 pages of statistics which add up to a damning indictment
of deregulation and privatisation.

Only 4% of services are subject to direct competition! Bus patronage
fell by 18% in the decade after deregulation and continues to decline in
the majority of England (outside London). In the last ten years there
has been a 9% cut in commercially run services. There is a vicious
circle of fare rises, cuts in services, falling passenger numbers and
rising costs (i.e. falling profits) leading to more fare rises and cuts
in services.

There will be a short-term increase in bus usage in the next few years
due to the introduction of free fares for the elderly and disabled but
the 'inexorable decline' is expected to continue after 2010-11.

This is despite public subsidies accounting for half the bus industry's
annual turnover! By next year, public subsidies, from central and local
government, will have increased by 150% under New Labour - from £1
billion to £2.5 billion. This is through the 80% rebate on bus
operators' fuel duty, supported services, concessionary fares and
capital spending on infrastructure such as interchanges, shelters and
bus corridors.

Deregulation has been a bonanza for the private sector. The Big Five
have carved up the industry, slashed jobs and wages and massively
increased their profits. FirstBus UK made £110 million profit last year,
returning £23 million straight back to the fat-cat shareholders and
promising a 10% annual increase in dividends. And this is being funded
by us - through our bus fares and taxes.

The government is determined that this rip-off will continue. They are
only proposing to tinker with their own Transport Act 2000 by supposedly
making it easier for Passenger Transport Authorities to apply for
'Quality Contracts' (a form of regulation similar to London). But New
Labour still insists that 'the legitimate interests of the bus
operators' (i.e. profits) must be safeguarded, even suggesting they help
draw up the contract specifications before bidding for them!

Clearly there is no solution to the problems of public transport,
congestion and pollution on the basis of deregulation and 'Profit First'
companies. Rather than subsidising the Big Five's profits, we must
campaign for the regulation of bus services under democratic local
control and renationalisation of all public transport (buses, trains and
trams) so that it can be integrated and planned to really put passengers
first.




6.  WORKING-CLASS PUPILS BENEFIT MOST FROM SELECTIVE EDUCATION

Further proof that the liberal establishment's hatred of grammar schools
is NOT about equality: it's about turning the mass population into dumb
docile sheep  who can be pushed around by liberal politicians.  Grammar
schools are the best avenue of upward mobility the British working class
has -- which is why the BNP pledges to restore all those that have been
closed, and open them in every community that wants them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/01/02/do
0201.xml

There are three problems with our schools. We are failing to give an
excellent education to cleverer boys and girls. We are failing to give a
sound basic education to less able pupils, especially in deprived areas.
And we are failing to stimulate the social mobility that good education
makes possible. Your educational chances, and your life chances, depend
too much on where you live.

The Government's City Academy programme attempts to address the problem
of the underprivileged areas. It is expensive and unproven. Sadly, money
and buildings do not solve all educational problems. We can expect
successes and failures.

On the other two problems, the Government's silence is deafening. Yet in
the 21st century, Britain cannot afford to educate its people less well
than the best in other countries. It is a personal tragedy as well as a
national loss when many of our best youngsters are not helped to fulfill
their potential. We have to educate everyone well if we are to compete
with the rest of the developed world and the emerging economies of the
East.
advertisement

We have some very good individual schools, including some good
comprehensives, but the system as a whole simply does not achieve
enough. International results put Britain so far down the league tables
that it must be time to look at another way of doing things. Between
2000 and 2003, for instance, the OECD's Programme for International
Student Assessment (Pisa) showed the UK slipping from fourth to 11th in
science and from eighth to 18th in maths. However, there was one
dazzlingly good result: when Pisa divided state schools from the private
sector in 31 developed countries, our independent schools came top of
the 62 groups.

So if Britain is running the best schools in the world, why are we not
also running the best state schools? I think, after 46 years in and
around teaching, that I know the answer. An outworn ideology prevents
the country from learning from the successful model in its midst.

One of the most important lessons is that independent schools are
schools of choice. They deal with reasonably willing pupils, with
teachers who care about their subjects and their students, and with
parents who are supportive. Independent schools are, in the real sense
of the word, selective: the parents select the school and the school
selects their sons and daughters.

Where selection remains in the state system – in those English counties
which have fought to retain grammar schools, and particularly in
Northern Ireland – we can see its value. Their results show that
selection works better, not just for the very able, but for the student
body as a whole. In Northern Ireland, 10 per cent more pupils achieve
five A*-C grades at GCSE than in England, and 30 per cent of A-level
papers get an A grade compared to 22 per cent in England. That makes the
Government's recent legislation intended to abolish selection in
Northern Ireland particularly regrettable.

But education is about much more than just exam results – and as well
outperforming the rest of the UK in tests, Northern Ireland also
provides the model for what a selective system can achieve for social
mobility. There, 42 per cent of university entrants come from less
privileged backgrounds, compared to only 28 per cent in England.

The concentration of our remaining grammar schools in a small number of
mostly higher-income areas means that many able children from poor
families miss out on the opportunities selective education can provide.
Yet it is the poor who benefit most from access to grammar schools.
Recent research from the University of Bristol compared the results of
selective and non-selective LEAs. While the average level of attainment
was not significantly higher, the minority of children from poor
families who made it to grammar schools did 'exceptionally well',
bumping up their average GCSE scores by seven or eight points –
equivalent to converting their grades from Bs to As. This compared to a
four-point uplift for grammar-school pupils as a whole.

There is a way of extending these opportunities to pupils from all
backgrounds in every part of the United Kingdom. It is not a case of
reverting to the 11-plus, nor of creating a few good schools for the
academically able and forgetting about the rest. A pamphlet published
this week by the Centre for Policy Studies (www.cps.org.uk), Three
Cheers for Selection: How Grammar Schools Help the Poor, proposes a
selective system which would free schools to choose their students;
which would offer ladders of opportunity to clever boys and girls from
deprived areas; and which would create a national network of specialist
academic schools.

This is the debate we should be having: not a debate about whether or
not to select, but on how to do it. Selection is unmentionable in
political circles only because it is a synonym for the 11-plus. I would
not want to go back to that. We should be debating more flexible methods
of how best to choose pupils for schools and when.

Almost everyone – except the lunatic fringe that would like university
places decided by lottery – accepts selection at 18. But since good
students have fallen by the wayside by then, what about 16, or 14? Why
is it all right to select pupils for 'Gifted and Talented' programmes at
a much younger age (and even to offer vouchers to the top 10 per cent,
as the schools minister Lord Adonis proposes), but not to select them
for particular schools? Why can specialist schools select 10 per cent of
their intake for being good at languages or general studies, but not
because they may be clever?

New polling undertaken by ICM for the Centre for Policy Studies shows
that the public is no longer in agreement with the politicians. Despite
the years of public argument against selection, the majority favour it.
The idea that more academic children maximise their potential through
streaming, or by attending selective schools, is backed by 76 per cent
of the public – and 73 per cent believe that this applies to less
academic children, too. Even if the majority would still opt for a
mixed-ability school for their own children, as many as 40 per cent
would now choose a selective school if it was on offer. More than 50 per
cent were in favour of schools being set free to choose their pupils by
a mix of exams, interviews and head teachers' recommendations.

The 40-year experiment with comprehensive education has failed. It was
meant to provide, in Harold Wilson's words, 'grammar schools for all',
and to lead to increased social mobility. It has done neither. It has
not raised standards – and, as the Sutton Trust has recently shown, we
now have a less mobile society than in the 1950s and 1960s.

In effect, selection by ability has been replaced by selection by
neighbourhood. That is neither sensible, nor egalitarian. It is time to
rid ourselves of an outworn dogma and explore practical ways of making
our schools as good as we can make them.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BNP IMMIGRATION BULLETIN
JANUARY 8, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk



1. BRITAIN STRUGGLES TO COPE WITH IMMIGRATION WAVE

http://worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=451

Manchester, England -- In this gritty northern city once famous for its
textile exports, two bus companies have had their operating licenses
suspended for employing Polish drivers who cannot read English road
signs. In the Romanian capital of Bucharest, a new bus station opened
this week to cater for yet more people keen to travel to Eastern
Europe's favorite destination.

As both Romania and Bulgaria became the European Union's newest members
on Jan. 1, Britain braced for a new wave of immigration.
After the EU expanded eastwards in 2004, the London government
hopelessly miscalculated the number of likely economic migrants looking
for a better income in Britain than at home. Government agencies
anticipated 13,000 people a year but now concede that about 600,000 East
Europeans -- the majority Poles -- arrived in Britain between 2004 and
2006.

The government claims that most have taken jobs the British don't want
to do, but evidence is emerging that cost-cutting companies are
employing foreigners in place of native labor. And critics argue that
the country's infrastructure and social fabric is being undermined by
the biggest wave of immigration since the Roman legions arrived over
2,000 years ago.

According to the independent watchdog Migrationwatch UK, Britain is now
receiving an immigrant a minute. Although the British government claims
the critics are scaremongering, it has quietly been spending almost
$600,000 on an advertising campaign in Romania and Bulgaria urging
people to say put after their countries join the EU. And for the first
time London has imposed work restrictions on EU countries -- barring
Romanians and Bulgarians from working in Britain without a permit.
However, there is no restriction on entry and many are expected to enter
and work illegally.

The chairman of Migrationwatch and former ambassador to Saudi Arabia,
Sir Andrew Green, said the government has begun reducing asylum
admissions but added: ‘As a result of their 'no limits' policy,
immigration as a whole has shot up. We now have a migrant arriving in
the U.K. almost every minute -- and these are just the legal ones we
know about.’

Migrationwatch says the large inflows from Eastern Europe account for
only about one in five foreign immigrants, while most of the rest came
from Asia and Africa.

‘They [the British government] have been trying their best to obscure
what is really happening by pretending that this mass immigration is a
success, even though it is the result of government miscalculation and
neglect,’ said Green. ‘But the strains in terms of schools, health and
housing refuse to go away -- not to mention the impact on the employment
prospects of British people as the unemployment numbers steadily
increase. These are conveniently airbrushed out of the picture.’

Migrationwatch, which includes the professor of demography at Oxford
University, David Coleman, among its advisers, says it is not opposed to
genuine refugees. But in a statement on its Web site the group argues
that ‘nowadays they comprise only about 10 percent of those who arrive
in Britain each year.’

Migrationwatch says current trends and official statistics indicate that
Britain faces a net inflow of non-EU migrants totaling 2 million per
decade.

Non-government organizations say the country, already the second most
crowded in Europe after the Netherlands, cannot cope with such numbers
and it could lead to a failure of integration and damage to the
country's cultural and social fabric.

Demand for visas to enter Britain has gone up by more than 30 percent in
the last five years and is now touching 2.5 million a year.

Migrationwatch and government figures show that Britain has 2.5 million
people whose first language is not English. The Commission for Racial
Equality is on record as saying Britain is ‘sleepwalking to
segregation.’

The warnings are particularly alarming given the growth of Britain's
Muslim population and signs of political disaffection by a new
generation born in Britain to immigrant parents. In 2006, the name
Mohammed was listed at 22nd in the country's roll call of most popular
newborn boys' names -- way above Michael.

A traditional weather vane of public opinion, the British national
press, seems divided on the issue of immigration. The brash tabloid
Daily Express newspaper this week ran a headline asking ‘Why are we
giving away our country?’ and railed against an immigration policy it
said ‘looks like an attack on our way of life.’ But The Times welcomed
Romania and Bulgaria into the EU and suggested that Britain could
benefit from a migration of farm labor and skilled doctors and nurses
from the two countries.

However, evidence has emerged that Poles, for example, are being hired
by construction companies in the greater London region because they
accept lower wages than skilled British builders. One reputable company
that employs only British labor told The Times it was being undercut in
contract tendering by companies using cheap imported labor.

Poles have migrated to Britain in huge numbers and signs in Polish have
sprung up in most major cities. In Manchester, two bus companies
employing 100 Polish drivers were ordered off the roads at the end of
December by a government traffic commissioner after a series of serious
accidents thought to be related to language problems and lack of
training.

Migationwatch's Green has said: ‘Language is absolutely vital to
integration. It is a serious indictment of multiculturalism that we
should now find that we have one million of working age who need help
with their English.’

The government has said it believes that immigration benefits the
national economy. Immigrationwatch agrees but adds the caveat that with
rising population costs the benefits to the host population are small, a
matter of a few cents per person a week.

Green's group also says that against the benefits there is disturbing
large-scale population change. In the last decade, it claims, 600,000
Londoners have left the city to be replaced by 700,000 immigrants.

‘This is changing the whole nature of London and other major cities.
This outflow of people is higher from boroughs with large ethnic
minorities.’

The Commission for Racial Equality recently expressed concern that a
number of major British cities will be reduced to a minority white
population by 2016.

But the London-based independent Joint Council for the Welfare of
Immigrants recently produced a report alleging that British immigration
policy was unfair and discriminated against the poor from non-EU
countries The Council says Britain should ‘be promoting a system that
facilitates migration from the global south, and the effective
integration of these migrants into UK society through guaranteeing a
minimum level of rights for them, such as a route to settlement, family
reunion, and employment protection.’

This idea seems not to suit at least some native Britons. The Guardian
national newspaper reported at the end of 2006 it had discovered that
the anti-immigration nationalist British National Party is beginning to
attract respectable middle class members, including businesspeople, as
it bids to shake off its image of being an extremist, Nazi-like
street-rabble organization. The BNP currently holds only a few dozen
local government council seats across the country -- mainly in areas of
high immigrant populations -- but is said to be bidding to win places on
the Greater London Assembly and even parliament.

But as foreigners queue to move into Britain, an increasing number of
British are moving out. According to the National Statistics Office,
120,000 British citizens emigrated in 2004 and another 198,000 in 2005.
Australia, Spain and France were the top destinations.






2. INDIANS SUE BRITISH GOV’T TO STAY IN BRITAIN

Some Indians were admitted to this country under rules that were later
changed, and they are suing our government to remain here.  We don’t
expect them to like it, but they need to accept that we don’t owe them
residence here any more than they owe us the right to live in India.  As
for the policy being ‘racist’, India itself has racially discriminatory
immigration policies (documented here:
http://www.vdare.com/pb/060502_vanderbilt.htm)

Main story:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_workers_take_British_govt_to_c
ourt_over_racist_rules/articleshow/1026865.cms

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

LONDON: An estimated 30,000 Indians who left the mother country to work
in Britain on the Highly
Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) have begun the fraught task of taking
the UK government to court for
its allegedly racist new immigration policies.

The UK, which allowed the Indians into the country under the
four-year-old scheme on the understanding
that they would work and probably settle here, is accused of changing
the rules of disenfranchise
coloured economic migrants arbitrarily and without warning.

Britain's new, strict HSMP rules, which officially came into force on
December 5, will force Indians and
other South Asians to leave the country because they no longer fit the
highly-skilled migrant category. The
new rules disenfranchise potential non-European migrants over 28 years
old and earning UK salaries
less than £35,000, say the affected Indians, British immigration lawyers
and immigration campaigners.

Amit Kapadia of the newly-formed HSMP Forum that represents those
affected by the changed rules told
TOI on Tuesday ‘most Indians will no longer be eligible to stay on in
Britain under the HSMP because
the government is clearly trying to remove migrants like us. They
unfairly say you will only qualify if
you are younger and better paid even though the average Indian
highly-skilled migrant can reasonably
be expected to be over 28 years old’.

He added, more in sorrow than in anger, ‘What is the difference between
these people (the British
authorities) and Idi Amin, who threw Indians out of Uganda one morning?’


Rhian Benyon of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI),
an independent voluntary
organisation campaigning for justice and combating racism in immigration
and asylum law, told TOI,
‘Britain's reform of its system of economic migration creates a
definite, if indirect racial disadvantage
for Indians and others from non-European Economic Area countries’.

The JCWI is just days away from launching a massive political and public
information campaign against the
new rules.

The changed HSMP rules are the third in a series of stringent changes to
immigration policy, making
Indians unwelcome in the UK. In April, Britain suddenly announced
migrants would need to have lived
here five years instead of four to qualify for permanent residence. A
few months later, it barred
Indian and other non-European doctors from arriving to study and work
here. By year-end, it changed HSMP
rules. The first two changes to immigration rules are already mired in
legal challenges.

The new rules may come under judicial review once the Indians' case is
filed at the High Court in London.
But when and if that happens, a verdict is not expected for several
months. Chris Randall, chair of
the Immigration Law Practitioner's Association (ILPA) representing 1,200
barristers, solicitors and
advocates across Britain, told TOI, the case might be a challenging one.


At least 49,000 migrants are expected to be affected by the new rules,
of which at least 60 per cent are
Indian and the majority of the rest Pakistani and Bangladeshi.

In a sign of the seriousness of the situation for Indians, officials of
the Indian High Commission have
met those affected by the new rules. The High Commission is understood
to be keen to lobby the
British Home Office and Foreign Office for a fairer immigration policy
that does not disenfranchise
Indians and other Commonwealth nationals.

The new rules have already drawn fierce criticism from ILPA, which asked
- and was peremptorily refused - a
request to meet immigration minister Liam Byrne last month, warned that
the new rules with the deeply
unfair points system could prevent even high-profile entrepreneurs such
as Steve Jobs, co-founder and chief
executive of Apple Computer, from qualifying for the right to work here.


The new rules would stop talented individuals from entering the country
while migrants already here ‘will
not now qualify to extend their leave to remain (in a move that was)
unfair and unreasonable’.

But the minister insisted the government had no reason to consult widely
with affected stakeholders. He said
‘We have made these changes in order to make sure that the people who
succeed under the programme are those
who will make the greatest contribution to the UK economy, to make the
requirements clearer and more
objective and to make sure that the programme is robust against abuse.’

The JCWI said Britain's hardline new immigration policy with respect to
non-EEA nationals was part of a
larger plan that factors in ‘an expanded European Union (of 27
countries) and the belief that Europe
should now be the reservoir of all labour market requirements’.

It added that Britain's new immigration rules for ‘all non-EEA
nationals, including those from the developing
world, wishing to immigrate for work and study, is in danger of
replicating the racial injustice which is a
feature of our socially unjust planet with its huge gaps in
international wealth and development.’

It said Britain was being hypocritical in insisting it would make all
its laws non-discriminatory but leaving
immigration law outside the purview of this.






3. First coachload of Bulgarians arrive

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=OM432660G&news_headline=first_c
oachload_of_bulgarians_arrive

The first bus-load of Bulgarians heading to Britain for work arrived in
London this
morning and spoke of their joy at being in the country.

The 50 on board were in the first small wave of the tens of thousands of
migrants predicted to flood to the
UK after the poor Eastern European country and its neighbour Romania
became the newest members of
the EU on New Year's Day.

After a gruelling two-day coach journey across the continent, they were
remarkably cheerful, laughing and joking as they unloaded their bags at
Victoria
coach station in central London before dawn today.

Many were heading north or south-west to low-paid jobs on flower farms,
but said
they were happy to have the chance to earn wages several times higher
than they
could at home.

University graduate Valentina Staykova, 25, from Plovdiv, said: ‘I'm
very happy
to be here. I've come to work picking flowers on a farm in Lincolnshire.

‘I will earn £5 an hour. In Bulgaria you would be lucky to get £3,000 in
six
months.

‘I have a good education but I don't mind doing manual work because the
money is
good. I plan to stay for maybe three years and save up to go back to
college.’

Around a dozen of the passengers were exchange students from an
agricultural
college near Plovdiv who were on their way to a six-month stint on a
flower farm
in Cambourne in Cornwall.

Officially they are here to gain experience in farming, but some
admitted they
did not know how much they would be paid for picking stems and feared
they might
be exploited.

Miroslav Boshnakov, 23, said: ‘There's not enough people to work on
farms here,
so they get students from abroad.

‘We are coming for six months to get experience, but I don't know how
much we'll
learn picking flowers. We will get paid according to how much we
produce, so I
don't know how much I will actually get.’

However his classmates were more optimistic. Dobroslava Bolpacheva, 27,
said:
‘It's my first time in Britain and I'm looking forward to it.

‘What we will get paid is big money compared to home, so it's a great
opportunity. ‘

Former retail manager Nick Miglenski, 37, spent six years in Chicago
studying
for an MBA before returning to Bulgaria for two years. He then decided
to move
here.

He said: ‘I've come to London hoping to study and work. Maybe I will
stay for a
year or two and maybe study for another masters degree part-time.

‘As EU citizens, now we can work as self-employed or part-time if we are
students.

‘Joining Europe is a big thing for my country. We have been waiting 15
years and
we deserve it. I believe there is a kind of discrimination against us
because
the Polish can come here and work freely, but there are restrictions on
us.

‘I understand the British public are worried, but they shouldn't because
there
are thousands of jobs here and British people don't want to do them.
They are
happy on social security.

‘Because I have studied business, I'd like to get some kind of
managerial job,
and I would like to earn £1,200 to £1,500 a month.

‘It's a lot more than at home where it's more like £300 although the
cost of
living is three or four times cheaper over there.

‘This is my first time in London and it's a fantastic city with great
opportunities. I've one or two friends here who will help me settle in.’

Mr Miglenski is from Burgas on the Black Sea. His brother Georgi Drazov,
47,
said there are much better opportunities for highly-skilled workers than
in the
poverty-stricken former communist-bloc state.

He said: ‘My qualifications are very specialised, maintaining computer
processors for industry. It's a specific industry that's not big in
Bulgaria. I
came here because there's much more opportunity for careers in London.

‘We've got a friend who will help us find a house and then we will start
looking
for work. In the beginning I will have to take any job I can get. But I
want to
improve my English and update my qualifications, then hopefully I will
get a job
in the industry.’

Speaking with his brother as an interpreter, he added: ‘The best thing
about
coming to England is not working for £5 an hour, it's the chance to
study and
improve your skills. Now we're EU citizens we pay the same fees as
English
people, which is five or six times cheaper than non-EU students. That's
a big
advantage.’

Nick added: ‘Freedom of movement is a very important part of the EU and
I think
I should have the right to go anywhere I like.

‘There are lots of negative stories in the papers about us coming here,
but
people should not worry because there are only seven million Bulgarians
compared
to 40 million Poles and anyway, most people I know who want to work
abroad are
going to Greece, Italy or Spain because there is more sunshine and the
culture
is more like ours.

‘I think it's good for Britain and it's just like Spain a few years ago.
Lots of
Spanish people came to Britain to work, but then thousands of British
moved to
Spain. There are 10,000 British in Bulgaria already, so it's a two-way
thing.
Bulgaria is a beautiful place and soon it will be the Florida of
Europe.’





4.  FINLAND STARTS REPATRIATING ASYLUM SEEKERS

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Finland+to+start+repatriating+people+to
+Afghanistan+and+possibly+Iraq/1135224073410

The Directorate of Immigration says that it will start repatriating
asylum-seekers to Afghanistan and possibly to Iraq. The policy change is
likely to mean that dozens - and possibly even hundreds - of asylum
seekers will be denied temporary residence permits and will have to
leave Finland.

Finland has not returned anyone to Afghanistan or Iraq for years,
because officials have considered such repatriations to be technically
impossible, owing to a lack of reliable flight connections to the
countries in question, for instance.

Finland has granted one-year temporary residence permits to Afghan and
Iraqi asylum-applicants, who were not seen to be in need of asylum
protection, but whose repatriation was not considered technically
feasible.

The police gave the Directorate of Immigration two statements late last
year, according to which repatriation to the Afghan capital Kabul and to
the Arbil area in the Kurdish region in the north of Iraq has now become
technically possible.

The Directorate of Immigration has already changed its policy line
concerning Afghanistan, and has given five Afghan asylum-seekers a
negative decision. The decisions can still be appealed.

‘Afghan applicants will probably not be granted temporary residence
permits, if conditions in their country stay as they are’, says Esko
Repo, head of the Directorate's asylum unit.

Repo estimates that Finland might turn back 60 - 70 Afghan applicants
this year, if the numbers of applicants develop as anticipated.

Afghans who are in Finland on temporary residence permits could also
face expulsion if they have not established other reasons to remain in
Finland. Last year 104 Afghan citizens were given one-year residence
permits in the January-November period. In 2005 the figure was 66.

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees places a
number of restrictions on repatriations to Afghanistan, but is not
completely opposed to sending people back to that country. Repo says
that decisions made by the Directorate of Immigration are based on very
fresh information, as an investigator from the Directorate visited
Afghanistan in the autumn on a fact-finding tour.

‘However, one must keep in mind that it is never possible to know what
might happen in the future. The situation in Somalia shows how quickly
things can change’, Repo points out.

Repatriation to Afghanistan is not exceptional on a global scale. In the
European Union, at least Denmark, Germany, Austria and the UK have
already done so. However, Sweden currently does not send people back to
Afghanistan.

Repo also believes that it is possible that Finland will start sending
people back to the Kurdish region in Northern Iraq. The UNHCR says that
under certain circumstances, repatriations to southern or central areas
of Iraq would be possible, but Finland is not doing so now.

The Directorate of Immigration would have repatriated 77 Iraqi asylum
seekers in January-November last year, if the police had been able to
implement the decisions. Instead, they were given temporary residence
permits.

The Directorate of Immigration will decide in the coming months if it
plans to start repatriations this year.

‘It is too early to say anything certain because of the fate of Saddam
Hussein, as well as other events. We are following the situation to the
very end before drawing conclusions’, Repo promises.

Sweden and Norway have already returned people to Iraq. Finnish police
say that those repatriations have proceeded without any great problems.




5. GOV'T LETS SMUGGLED ALIENS STAY IN BRITAIN

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID
=1955424


The Government must sign a European Convention which grants victims of
human trafficking the right to stay in Britain temporarily, the
Conservative Party has said.

Shadow home secretary David Davis said the move was vital for ‘moral
reasons’ to protect people exploited by trafficking gangs.
Despite his party's previous opposition to signing the European
Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, Mr Davis said
he was confident it would not attract more immigrants to Britain.

The Government has so far refused to join the agreement, which grants
victims of human trafficking at least 30 days to recover from their
ordeal and reflect on whether they will help police.

Mr Davis said: ‘There is something the Government should do tomorrow and
that is sign the European Convention against trafficking.

‘The Government has avoided doing this – I don't really understand why.

‘I do not believe that by giving civilised treatment to the victims of
this trade – allowing 30 days' reflection whilst they are ready to go
and become witnesses – that that will actually be a pull factor. Just
the reverse.’

Mr Davis said other measures which should be taken immediately include
setting up a helpline for victims and increasing the number of safe
houses for people rescued from trafficking,.

He also repeated the Tories' intention to create a new border police
force to reduce the number of people entering the UK illegally.
He said: ‘It is now 200 years since William Wilberforce saw the end of
the slave trade in the UK. It is past time that we brought this evil
trade to an end.
‘It is a high priority for a moral reason.’

He said the problem of trafficking involved thousands of people brought
to the UK under false pretences to work in the sex trade or for
gangmasters and other exploitative employers.

According to estimates there were 4,000 victims of trafficking in
prostitution in the UK during 2003. Another estimate put the figure at
10,000 in London and the Midlands alone, he added.

However, there have been only 30 convictions for trafficking from 2004
to last year.
Immigration minister Liam Byrne said: ‘The UK fully supports the
multiple aims of the convention and participated actively in the
negotiations.

‘The Home Secretary is at present giving the matter his fullest
consideration and will be writing to colleagues in Government in the
near future. There are no time limits within which signature must take
place.’
Tim Hancock, of Amnesty International, said: ‘We hope the Government
will be minded to sign up to the European Convention Against Trafficking
without delay.’






6.  EUROPE THE 'PROMISED LAND' FOR AFRICANS

http://allafrica.com/stories/200701040880.html

The last summer has seen a surge in immigration to mainland Europe form
some African countries. While European leaders are attempting to stop
the wave, Tope Akinwande points to the hypocrisy of massive farm
subsidies received by European farmers and the trade policies that make
it impossible for African agriculture sectors to survive.

Like their other fellow members of the human race, Africans have
migrated since the dawn of history. They have moved in response to
demographic, economic, political and related factors [1]. In recent
times, there has been a spotlight on African immigration to European
countries. As the legal requirements for entry into Europe become
stricter and more cumbersome and as opportunities of a decent livelihood
shrinks in sub-Saharan Africa, its people have resorted to desperate
means in order to gain access to what is generally considered to be the
‘Promised Land’ for many Africans outside Europe. This has been ever
more apparent in west Africa, where young people travel through deserts,
stow away in ships, and employ all sorts of means in order to reach
Europe.

How did this situation arise? In the 1960s and the beginning of the
1970s, Africa's future looked bright. It was the post-independence
‘self-determination’ era laden with all sorts of opportunities; almost
all of the agricultural-based African economies could meet the needs of
its people. An average African had no cause to risk their life by
travelling in a desperate fashion to Europe when their basic needs could
be met in their country of origin.

Africans who ventured to Europe for further studies were in a hurry to
return to their countries of origin as prestigious and lucrative jobs
with all the accompanying benefits awaited them. Afterwards, they only
travelled to the western world for business and leisure. The few African
students who stayed back in Europe were considered as failures who could
not find their feet back home.

However, things have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. Africans and
especially west Africans - probably because of the coastal closeness to
Europe - are the new ‘Boat People’ fleeing abject poverty occasioned by
lack of opportunities in their countries of origin. They are constantly
in the international spotlight either being rescued by European coast
guards, attended to by tourists or having their bloated bodies
occasionally washed to the shores.

In the summer of 2006 - summer is said to be the preferred travel time
as the sea is supposedly calmer - it was almost a daily occurrence to
see demeaning images of tired and hopelessly-looking African men and
women rescued by European coast guards after risking their lives to get
to the Spanish Canary Islands. They used make-shift boats to negotiate
the treacherous waves of the Mediterranean Sea with the aim of escaping
poverty back home [2].

According to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), and the
United Nations Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, over 27,000 illegal
immigrants have turned up in 2006 on the Spanish Canary Island off the
west African coast.

While the rescued sojourners are considered to be ‘fortunate’ to have
stepped onto the shores of Europe despite the excruciating difficulties
awaiting them, many Africans are not lucky enough to be intercepted
mid-sea by coast guards. They perish with their desperate dreams. So far
in 2006, the Spanish coast guard has accounted for 500 bodies found in
the ocean around the Canaries.

Origin of the problem

Compared to the 1960s and early 1970s, Africa's growth performance in
the 80s and 90s has been very bad. The 1980s have been described as a
‘lost decade’ [3], while the children of that era and the 1990s have
been famously tagged the ‘wasted generation’ by the Nigerian Nobel
Laureate, Wole Soyinka.

Despite the strong belief held by many Africa analysts that the economic
woes of Africa are rooted in its ‘largely documented history’ of
colonialism which culminated in a façade called ‘independence’ and the
Cold War which institutionalised despotism, kleptocracy, and big-man
politics, the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) imposed by the
World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), have made it
impossible for African countries to meet the basic needs of their
people.

Introduced in the 1970s to galvanise the economies of African countries,
following the decline in the prices of agricultural products, SAP came
with tough conditionalities such as privatisation, wage freezes,
privatisation, elimination of price controls and lifting of trade
barriers.

Instead of encouraging economic development, SAPs created a new
phenomenon of Heavily Indebted Poor Countries who could not meet the
basic needs of their people.

In its 22 June 2006 edition, The Economist in its characteristic
sanctimonious manner posited that ‘rich countries have been generous
lately, with extra aid and debt relief, giving many struggling economies
a breath of air. By the end of last year, 29 countries, 25 of them in
Africa, had had their debt burden eased...’ The magazine goes on to
wonder if ‘...Africa, often dubbed the hopeless continent, (is) finally
taking off?’ [4] For once, a magazine that has carelessly dubbed Africa
as a ‘Hopeless Continent’ conceded that ‘Africa itself deserves the
credit for the upswing ‘of its economy in the past year’ [5].

Like most of its counterparts in the international media, what ‘The
Economist’ failed to acknowledge is that the dividends of the so-called
debt relief are easily drowned by one phenomenon - the international
trade policies of the ‘generous’ industrial nations it was talking
about. The debt relief issue is like giving something out with the left
hand and taking it back with the right hand.

In March 2005, the British government, who has been in the forefront of
the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPCI), published a
detailed report of the £1.7bn it gave to agricultural companies as
subsidies. At the same time, the US -though planning to reduce its
subsidies to American farmers by 5 percent - gave about $9bn [6].

How on earth would African farmers compete with their European and
American counterparts on the world food market? Would African
governments whose national budgets are sometimes smaller than the
subsidies western farmers receive be able to subsidise their farmers to
‘even the scores’? They will have to face incessant unrest at home while
the rest of their citizens ‘hit the road’ or set off for European
coasts.

Oumar Hamadoun Dicko, Foreign Affairs Minister of Mali, could not have
been more precise on the causes of the recent wave of immigration of
west Africans: ‘Immigration is going to continue unless we address
fundamental issues like the unequal terms of trade,’ he says. ‘African
farmers can't compete and are out of world markets,’ he concludes in a
recent interview with United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs [7]. He surely knows what he is talking about since
Mali's cotton farmers have been greatly affected by the subsidies
enjoyed by their western counterparts.

According to the Malian Foreign Affairs Ministry, 4 million, or over a
third of Mali's 11.7 million people are currently out of the country
[8]. It is noteworthy that the majority of these Malian emigrants are
from Kayes, the main cotton-producing area of the country. They have had
to leave their cotton farms to try their luck in Europe.

Monies remitted by this large Malian Diaspora have been vital in meeting
the needs that the government has been unable to meet. Many Malians in
the Diaspora are building schools, dispensaries, and other amenities in
their regions. The Malian Ministry of Foreign Affairs concedes that
annual Malian Diaspora remittance exceeds 200 million US Dollars, which
is more than half of the country's export earnings.

While a lot of talks have been going on about agricultural subsidies as
the main international trade policies that have hampered trade and
development in Africa, it is interesting to know that there are many
other types of subsidies such as ‘fishing subsidies’ that have not made
life easier for developing countries.

Recently, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) accused Japan of paying
the highest subsidies to its national fishing industry at $US2-billion
dollars. The report also indicated that the 15-member European Union,
China, and the United States are leading underwriters [9]. These
governments give their farmers and fishing companies subsidies in the
form of grants, loans and loan guarantees, equity infusions, tax
preferences, and price or income support.

Thiaroye-Sur-Mer is a fishing town a few kilometres from Dakar, the
capital of Senegal. A few years ago and up till the end of 2005, one
could see hundreds of fishermen - both young and old - selling fish to
locals and large-scale buyers from Dakar and elsewhere. Today,
Thiaroye-Sur-Mer has almost become a ghost town as almost all the
younger fishermen have all taken to the seas; this time not to fish but
to try their luck in Spain's Canary Islands. They sold their means of
livelihood (boats, fishing nets, etc) and bought a one-way ticket on a
boat to a supposed better future in Europe.

Like many sub-Saharan African countries, Senegal has been going through
an excruciating SAP that has completely destroyed its economy. Its main
source of income - groundnut - is no longer well-priced on the
international market as many substitutes have been derived. Senegal's
fishing industry is losing its momentum as the country has been
inundated with subsidised food, including fish from Europe and Asia,
making it impossible for local fishermen to sell their wares at a decent
rate and meet the basic needs of their families. The only way for these
young Senegalese fishermen to survive and meet the needs of their
families is by trying their luck in Europe. This has become a way of
life in a country where monies remitted by the Senegalese Diaspora
sometimes accounts for 90 percent of income in many households.

Which way forward?

With the recent wave of immigration to the Spanish Canary Island,
European governments, led by Spain, have been trying to curb the
immigration of Africans who are willing to risk their lives to reach
Europe at all costs.

The incidents of September and October 2005 where Spanish coast guards
opened fire on ill-equipped boats full of African immigrants led to the
adoption of the ‘Rabat Declaration’ on 11 July 2006 by 57 European and
African countries. The Declaration enjoined the 57 signatory countries
to set up an action plan that will get to the core of the problem.

In September 2006, the European Union promised to provide Mali with
US$542 million over five years to control the emigration of its
citizens. Mali is expected to use the money to start various projects
aimed at discouraging young people from emigrating.

International NGOs are also trying to encourage young Africans to stay
back in their countries. For example, the Spanish Red Cross has embarked
on an awareness campaign in Senegal to demystify the notion of success
attached to emigration. They are emphasizing the harsh realities.

African celebrities have also thrown themselves into the fray. One of
the most successful African singers, Senegalese Youssou N'Dour is
lending his notoriety and voice to the anti-emigration campaign. In
collaboration with IOM and other well-known Senegalese musicians, he has
recorded a single titled ‘Emigration’ where he enjoined the youth not to
abandon their country. One thing missing in this beautiful and groovy
record is that Youssou N'Dour forgot to suggest alternatives to
Senegalese and African youth.

Can these initiatives work? Since all the aforementioned initiatives,
there have been cases of African boat people arriving in Spain and as
recent as September 2006 in Malta, thus exasperating the government of
the tiny country that has just joined the European Union.

As one route is being blocked, Africans perfect their ‘travelling
techniques’. On 20 November 2006 Europa Press Agency reported how 1,293
west Africans, braving a very harsh winter, arrived in Spain' s Canary
island with many of them using well-built fishing vessels. They also
travelled with enough provisions (food, winter clothing, etc. ) to see
them through their journey of death. Interestingly, some immigrants
devise or go back to the old routes, probably thinking that immigration
authorities' would have shifted focus away from them.

Conclusion

As I had indicated earlier on, there are a lot of initiatives to curb
illegal immigration with the latest one being the first Ministerial
Conference on Migration and Development between EU and the entire
African continent slated for 22 and 23 November 2006. One of the
expected outcomes of the Conference was the establishment of a framework
for a joint collaboration between Europe and Africa to curb illegal
immigration. The framework will consider major causes of immigration
such as economic integration and development.

When one considers the impact of the remittances made by African
immigrants - both legal and illegal - to their national economies and
how it is being sadly flaunted and praised as an alternative to foreign
earnings, it is not foolhardy to wonder if African politicians are
really sincere and keen on curbing the flow of their citizens to the
west. Why should they bother when the emigration of their citizens
‘relieves’ them of the headache of sourcing funds to embark on
development projects such as building of schools, hospitals, roads, etc.
? If they genuinely work towards stopping them from emigrating, what
alternatives do they have for farmers who cannot sell their produce?
Have they got any alternatives for young graduates and school leavers
they are churned out in millions into joblessness and despair?

It is noteworthy that while African politicians are silently grateful
for the ‘subsidies’ they get from their citizens in the Diaspora,
western politicians are not keen on stopping the subsidies they give to
their citizens as their national interest and particularly political
survival in their respective countries depends on keeping their farmers
and citizens happy.

As long as this political deadlock is not broken, the west and Europe in
particular, should be prepared to receive more and more people.

• Tope Akinwande is a Desk Officer at the West Africa Department of
TEARFUND, a leading UK relief and development NGO working in partnership
with Christian agencies and churches in over 70 countries to tackle the
causes and effects of poverty. His views do not necessarily reflect
those of TEARFUND.

• Please send comments to editor@... or comment at
www.pambazuka.org










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

TELL THE ENGLISH NATIONAL BALLET NOT TO SACK SIMONE CLARKE FOR BEING A
BNP MEMBER!


Dear Patriot,

Once again, the PC gang are trying to stop someone's right to their
political views.

Simone Clarke, principal dancer of the English National Ballet, was
revealed by the Guardian newspaper last month to be
a member of the British National Party.

The neo-Marxist group Unite Against Fascism is pressuring the ENB to
sack her.

Please write the ENB and tell them that you, as a voter, will not stand
for such a thing!

The address is: info@...

Thanks!



BBC NEWS STORY:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6241763.stm

Anti-racism campaigners are to protest at the English National Ballet
after a dancer admitted being a member of the British National Party.
Principal dancer Simone Clarke was revealed to be a member of the party
by the Guardian newspaper last month.

She has since defended her beliefs, and says the BNP is "the only party
to take a stand" on issues like immigration.

Campaign group Unite Against Fascism (UAF) is calling for the
36-year-old ballerina to be sacked.

It is planning to protest outside a performance of Giselle, in which
Clarke takes the lead role, at the London Coliseum later this week.

The English National Ballet says it will not comment on the political
affiliations or personal lives of its dancers.

'No regrets'

Calls for Clarke's dismissal have increased since she gave an interview
defending her political views to the Mail on Sunday.

"I have been labelled a racist and a fascist," she said, "because I have
a view on immigration - and I mean mass immigration - but isn't that
something that a lot of people worry about?

"It's not about removing foreigners. It's about border controls," she
added.

"I don't regret anything. I will stay a member."

"We would like to see Simone Clarke removed," said UAF spokesman Weyman
Bennett. "We believe she had used her position to support a party which
fosters division."

'Incompatible views'

He added that such views were "incompatible with a leading arts
institution such as the English National Ballet".

The BNP currently holds more than 50 council seats in the UK.

On its website, it portrays itself as the only party "prepared to defend
our traditional principles against the politically correct agenda" of
Tony Blair and David Cameron.

But it is still best known for its political involvement in areas with
racial tensions, and has been accused of stirring up antagonism -
particularly against Muslims - in places such as Oldham, Burnley and
Bradford.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BNP ANTI-JIHAD BULLETIN
JANUARY 8, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk



1. IRAN-ISRAEL NUCLEAR WAR FEARED

While the BNP opposed the Iraq war from the start, and continues to
press for Britain's withdrawal, Iran is a somewhat different case.
Britain itself has no business getting involved, but given that Iran has
openly threatened a nuclear attack on Israel, and is building the bombs
to make good this threat, Israel has the right to defend itself -- as
long as they don't drag us into it, of course.  We may face similar
lunatics ourselves one day, and cannot afford to have a consensus
established in the so-called international community that would oblige
us to idly sit by and watch our national annihilation being prepared.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment
facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian
facility using low-yield nuclear 'bunker-busters', according to several
Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the
United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The
Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of
the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open 'tunnels'
into the targets. 'Mini-nukes' would then immediately be fired into a
plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of
radioactive fallout.

'As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike
and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,' said one of the
sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted
in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad's assessment that
Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make
nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer
be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment
facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete
and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only
if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined
to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider
military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans
could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole
America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli
attack.

Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could
range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks
against Jewish targets around the world.

Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are
believed to be involved in Iran's nuclear programme:

Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium
enrichment

A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a
statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for
the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels

A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough
plutonium for a bomb
Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay
Iran's nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to
live in fear of a 'second Holocaust'.

The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow
nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, has declared that 'Israel must be wiped off the map'.

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military
action against Iran as a 'last resort', leading Israeli officials to
conclude that it will be left to them to strike.

Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the
2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have
been mapped out, including one over Turkey.

Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof,
south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel's tactical nuclear weapons
on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General
Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.

Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely
to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source
said Israel would have to seek approval 'after the event', as it did
when it crippled Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in
1981.

Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the
bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds
would be released.

The Israelis believe that Iran's retaliation would be constrained by
fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic
missiles at Israel.

However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread
protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to
the West.

Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close
the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world's oil.

Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the
nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli
defence minister, said last month: 'The time is approaching when Israel
and the international community will have to decide whether to take
military action against Iran.'





2. LONDONER IDENTIFIED AS AL QAEDA'S BANKER

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2535240,00.html

The British and American governments have named a key Al-Qaeda suspect
in Britain as one of the terror group's alleged bankers.

Mohammed al-Ghabra, whose bank accounts have been frozen by the Bank of
England, last week denied any involvement in terrorism. He admitted he
had 'radical views' and said he was an active supporter of Respect, the
anti-war party led by George Galloway, the maverick former Labour MP.

The American government has issued a statement 'designating' al-Ghabra,
who lives in east London, as someone 'who provides material and
logistical support to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations'.

The Americans and British intelligence officials allege in official
documents that al-Ghabra, 26, is a key organiser in the international
'pipeline' that sends terrorists from Britain to fight coalition troops
in Iraq.

Al-Ghabra, a naturalised British citizen who was born in Syria, received
a letter from the Treasury last month telling him: 'The Treasury has
reasonable grounds for suspecting that you are, or may be, a person who
facilitates the commission of acts of terrorism.'

Speaking at his home in Forest Gate, al-Ghabra said MI5 had repeatedly
accused him in interviews with his friends of being a terrorist
'moneymaker'. He said: 'If I am the moneymaker and this is why they have
decided to put the sanctions against me, how could I have so many
financial problems myself?'

In its statement, issued after his bank accounts were frozen, the US
Treasury said: 'Al-Ghabra has organised travel to Pakistan for
individuals seeking to meet senior Al-Qaeda individuals and to undertake
jihad training.

'Several of these individuals have returned to the UK to engage in
covert activity on behalf of Al-Qaeda. Additionally, al-Ghabra has
provided material support and facilitated the travel of UK-based
individuals to Iraq to support the insurgents' fight against coalition
forces.'

Last month his home, a two-storey maisonette where he lives with his
mother and sister, was raided by Scotland Yard's counterterrorist
command. According to the search warrant, detectives were looking for
'explosives, precursor chemicals, weapons, component parts of weapons or
improvised explosive devices'.

They were also looking for 'documentation, maps, plans or any other data
giving details of possible targets/venues subject to terrorist attack'.

MI5 has apparently targeted al-Ghabra while conducting an investigation
into the so-called 'pipeline' that is fuelling the terrorist insurgency
in Iraq.

The flow of young Muslim men from Europe to Iraq has increased in the
past three years. The 'pipeline' of suspected terrorists is being
fuelled by growing resentment about American and British policy and
scandals such as the maltreatment of inmates at Abu Ghraib prison.

Al-Ghabra says that MI5 is simply wrong to connect him to any of this.
'I don't have the capability of supporting anyone financially, barely
myself . . . If anyone has the evidence, please show it to me. I am not
the banker.'

He was charged with fraud and possession of a document or record that
could be useful to terrorism and spent nine months in Belmarsh
high-security prison in south London before being acquitted by a jury in
2004.

He says he is an active member of the Muslim Prisoner Support group,
which campaigns for the rights of suspected Islamic terrorists. The
group's website says he was a speaker at a demonstration it held outside
Belmarsh last October.

British intelligence officials claim al-Ghabra is associated with
several suspects who have been arrested in connection with alleged
Al-Qaeda plots against British targets.

One is Haroon Aswat, currently in a British prison awaiting extradition
to America on terrorism charges.

Al-Ghabra said he met Aswat at a religious school in the Pakistani city
of Lahore.

He said their association was entirely innocent and he was 'shocked' to
see Aswat's picture on television when he was arrested in 2005 after the
London bombings.

Al-Ghabra said he had attended several Respect meetings because he
supported its views on Iraq and other issues. He claimed to have
nominated some of its election candidates. The party said records were
no longer available to confirm this.

'I don't believe I am a member of any party, but I help people who speak
for people who are oppressed. I support their (Respect's) message. I
like some of his (Galloway's) views on the anti-war campaign, even some
of his taxation ideas.'

A spokesman for Respect said: 'He is not a member and we don't know him.
But we also understand that he has not been charged with any offence or
convicted in a court of law.'

The American Treasury claims al-Ghabra is 'in regular contact with
UK-based Islamic extremists and has been involved in the radicalisation
of individuals in the UK through the distribution of extremist media'.

But al-Ghabra denied that his views were extreme. 'My radical views are
the same as any ordinary Muslim's radical views. Yes, I disagree with
the invasion of Iraq. Yes, I disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan .
. . I don't agree with people coming here and . . . fighting here,
fighting the British public. Things like the July bombings I don't agree
with.'





3. ISLAMIST EXTREMISM AT MOSQUES IN BRITAIN

Further proof of the hopeless naivete of Tony Blair, who thinks he can
pick out 'bengin' Muslims.  If even the PM can't tell who's dangerous
and who's not, how can we risk have any of them in the country?

http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=346499&sid=WOR&ssid=

An undercover investigation by a leading daily has revealed disturbing
evidence of Islamic extremism at a number of Britain's leading mosques
and Muslim institutions, including an organization praised by Prime
Minister Tony Blair.

According to the 'Observer', secret video footage revealed Muslim
preachers exhorting followers to prepare for jihad, to hit girls for not
wearing the Hijab, and to create a 'state within a state.'

Many of the preachers are linked to the Wahhabi strain of Islam
practiced in Saudi Arabia, which funds a number of Britain's leading
Islamic institutions.

A forthcoming channel 4 dispatches programme paints an alarming picture
of how preachers in some of Britain's most moderate mosques are urging
followers to reject British laws in favour of those of Islam.

Leaders of the mosques have expressed concern at the preachers
activities, saying they were unaware such views were being disseminated.


At the Sparkbrook mosque, run by UK Islamic Mission (Ukim), an
organization that maintains 45 mosques in Britain and which Tony Blair
has said 'is extremely valued by the government for its multi-faith and
multicultural activities,' a preacher is captured on film praising the
Taliban.

In response to the news that a British Muslim soldier was killed
fighting the Taliban, the Speaker declares: 'the hero of Islam is the
one who separated his head from his shoulders.'

Another Speaker says Muslims cannot accept the rule of non-Muslims. 'You
cannot accept the rule of non-Muslim,' a preacher, Dr Ijaz Mian, tells a
meeting held within the mosque. 'We have to rule ourselves and we have
to rule the others.'

The 12-month investigation also recorded a deputy headmaster of an
Islamic high school in Birmingham telling a conference at the Sparkbrook
mosque that he disagrees with using the word democracy.

'They should call it... Kuffrocracy, that's their plan. It's the hidden
cancerous aim of these people.' The Darul Uloom School said it no longer
employed the teacher and that one of the reasons he resigned 'was the
incompatibility of many of his opinions with the policies of the
school.'

Inside the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, a preacher is recorded
saying, 'Allah has created the woman deficient.' A satellite broadcast
from the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh,
beamed into the green lane mosque suggests that Muslim children should
be hit if they don't pray: 'when he is seven, tell him to go and pray,
and start hitting them when they are 10.'

Another preacher is heard saying that if a girl 'doesn't wear Hijab, we
hit her.'

In a statement to channel 4, Lord Ahmed, the convener of the
government's preventing extremism taskforce, said he was worried about
the programme's consequences. 'While I appreciate that exaggerated
opinions make good TV, they do not make for good community relations.'





4. ISLAMIST EXTREMISM AT UNIVERSITIES IN BRITAIN

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=7340

In 1994, the Indian High Commissioner, L. M. Singhvi, claimed that
Muslim students at British colleges and universities were being
recruited by Islamist terror groups in India. The London School of
Economics and the University of London's School of Oriental and African
Studies were claimed to be places where students were particularly
susceptible to such recruitment.

After followers of Hizb ut-Tahrir murdered Ayotunde Obanubi on Monday
February 27, 1995, at Newham College of Further Education, repercussions
ensued. The National Union of Students banned the group from its
meetings in the same year. In 1996, Omar Bakri Mohammed either resigned
or was expelled from the British Hizb ut-Tahrir group which he had
founded.

Hizb ut-Tahrir continued to campaign on campuses, intimidating Muslim
women into wearing veils, but it was not allowed to speak publicly or
hold meetings in student union buildings. With Bakri no longer an active
member, the group promoted itself as a 'non-violent' organization, even
though it remained virulently anti-Semitic and opposed to democracy.

Bakri took his most violent and extremist members from Hizb ut-Tahrir
and officially founded British Al-Muhajiroun in February 1996. Bakri
took on the role of 'Emir' or 'spiritual leader', while his deputy was
Anjem Choudary, a former lawyer.

The Institute for Counter-Terrorism last month reported on a recent
conversation (in Arabic) between Bakri and the newspaper Asharq Alawsat.
Here he said that Al Muhajiroun targeted more than 48 different
universities in Britain, including Cambridge, Oxford, Durham, the LSE,
Imperial College, Westminster University, and King's College. This
figure is twice the amount claimed by Professor Anthony Glees in his
2005 study 'When Students Turn To Terror'.

The London School of Economics, according to a 2002 report, was
certainly a locus for Islamist terror recruitment. In a report by UK
intelligence, it was claimed that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who had
became a student at the LSE in 1992, went to Bosnia in 1993 and the
following year became involved in Kashmiri terrorist groups, including
Jaish-e-Mohammed. He was arrested in 1994 after a police shoot-out
following the kidnapping of three British backpackers. He escaped from
jail in 1999, and was captured by Pakistani police on February 12, 2002.
Omar Sheikh was captured for his involvement in the kidnapping and
beheading of US journalist Daniel Pearl, and given a death sentence on
July 15, 2002.

Bizarrely, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan states in his recent
book 'In The Line Of Fire' that Omar Sheikh had been originally
recruited by Britain's international intelligence agency, MI6. Omar
Sheikh admits to meeting Osama bin Laden twice, but claims his
allegiance is more to Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Omar Sheikh is said to
have financed the 9/11 terrorist, Mohammed Atta.

The 2002 intelligence report claims that another student from the LSE
recruited for Jaish-e-Mohammed, and a third man who was arrested for
involvement in the 2001 attack upon the Indian parliament (killing
seven) actually lectured to Muslim students at the LSE in 1999.

An official at the LSE claimed: 'There was some activity in the
mid-1990s. Together with the students' union we checked that only bona
fide students were actually linked to the Islamic society.' In 2000,
members of Al-Muhajiroun were physically expelled from a freshers' fair
at the LSE after trying to recruit students.

Al-Muhajiroun declared that there was a 'covenant of security' between
British Muslims and the UK, which meant that while Muslims were allowed
to operate there would be no terrorist attacks on British soil. In 2005,
the Sunday Times stated that more than a dozen Al-Muhajiroun members had
gone on to become suicide bombers abroad. These included Asif Hanif, who
had been one of two Britains involved in the April 2003 attack upon
Mike's Bar on the Tel Aviv sea front, which killed three and wounded
sixty.

In October 2004, Omar Bakri Mohammed announced that Al-Muhajiroun would
be disbanding. In February 2005, he declared that the 'covenant of
security' had ended. Four months later, 52 people died when four
Muslims, two of whom had been university-educated, decided to enact
'jihad' in London.

Though Al-Muhajiroun was disbanded, it nonetheless continued under other
names, with exactly the same membership. It became the Saviour Sect and
Al Ghurabaa. These groups were still led by the 'Emir', Omar Bakri
Mohammed. The Saviour Sect soon changed its name to become the Saved
Sect.

Changing of names is a tactic also employed by Hizb ut-Tahrir in its
recruitment drives, where its activists hide behind groups with
innocuous titles  - East London Youth Forum, the Debate Society, the
Muslim Women's Cultural Forum, the Islamic Society, the One Nation
Society, the Millennium Society, the Pakistan Society and the 1924
Committee.

After the July 7, 2005 bombings Tony Blair announced in August that he
intended to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir. When Blair made this announcement, the
Islamist group which professed 'non-violence' threatened to create
riots. To this day Hizb ut-Tahrir has still not been banned in Britain.

The UK home secretary, John Reid, banned the former Al-Muhajiroun groups
in July 2006. This ban has done nothing to stop Omar Bakri's followers,
as in November 2005 the same core membership of Al-Muhajiroun had
founded Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, under the leadership of Anjem Choudary.


When Bakri fled to Lebanon in August 2005, he was banned from returning.
For two decades he had controlled young Muslims, urging them to claim
welfare benefits, to refuse to work and to never vote. But he continued
to use the internet to inspire his followers.

In July 2005, it was reported by the National Union of Students that
Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut-Tahrir members were still trying to recruit
members from Scottish universities, using 'front' names to avoid
detection. Imran Waheed, the head spokesperson of Hizb ut-Tahrir in
Britain, said: 'We are an intellectual and political movement and we
work in Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh. Universities should be a forum
for debate and we are trying to overturn the NUS ban which we believe is
completely unjustified.'

In October 2005, it was revealed that Hizb ut-Tahrir, under another
name, was recruiting at University College London, London University's
School of Oriental Studies, Luton University and others. Capitalizing on
the leftist students' love of the term 'Islamophobia' to stifle rational
debate about Islamism, Hizb ut-Tahrir were operating under the title
'Stop Islamophobia'.

Anjem Choudary followed his 'Emir' to Lebanon, but was deported in
November 2005. Unable to speak or recruit at British universities,
Choudary was within a week addressing students at the historic Trinity
College in Dublin, Ireland. Choudary said that because Ireland supported
the US (with its planes refueling at Shannon Airport), it was a
potential target for terrorism.

On November 1, 2005 Ann Cryer, a Labour politician, MP for Keighley,
claimed that one university in West Yorkshire was being targeted by
members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, who were threatening students. She did not
mention the name of the university, for fear it would affect enrollment,
but it is believed to be the University of Bradford. She said: 'When I
went to the university a few weeks ago I was told that Hizb ut-Tahrir
has taken over the Islamic society and was preparing to take over the
students union.'

On August 10, 2006, it was revealed that a massive plot, involving about
twenty British Muslims, had been halted. This plot had involved a plan
to smuggle liquid explosives onto several US-bound airlines. These were
to be reassembled into bombs on board flights, in the manner first
outlined by Ramzi Yousef in 1995, in his notorious 'Operation Bojinka'.

One of the suspects in this plot was 22-year old Waheed Zaman from
Walthamstow, north-east London, who was head of the Islamic Society at
London Metropolitan University. Zaman was later charged under Section 1
(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, as he had 'conspired with other
persons to murder other persons'. In relation to this conspiracy he was
charged under Section 5 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006. - 'preparing to
smuggle parts of improvised explosive devices on to aircraft and
assemble and detonate them on board.'

Zaman was a member of the extremist group Tablighi Jamaat. The Sunday
Telegraph visited the two portable cabins which served as London
Metropolitan University's Islamic Society, based on the campus at
Hornsey Road, north London. Here, they found literature and audio
cassettes from Omar Bakri Mohammed and Al-Muhajiroun. A newsletter found
in the Islamic Society called freedom of speech 'undeniably one of the
most central deviated forms of moral decline that non-believers have
developed.'

The problem of radical Islam on British university campuses is
entrenched, and any attempts to address the problem are met with whines
of 'Islamophobia' from Muslims and leftists. Professor Anthony Glees
received hostility from Muslims and others for his 2005 report. The
vice-chancellor of his university, Steven Schwartz, wrote him a letter
stating: 'I have been receiving some surprising letters from other v-cs
(vice-chancellors) complaining about your report. Some complain about
your research methods. Others seem to resent being lumped in with
universities that might be inadvertent homes to people bent on
terrorism. One v-c seems to think that I should (or could) shut you up.'


Glees runs the Brunel Center for Intelligence and Security Studies at
Brunel University. As he himself admitted in his 2005 report, Brunel was
not immune from the specter of jihadist recruitment. One individual who
became targeted for recruitment at Brunel was Jawad Syed.

In his first year, Syed knew no-one but was befriended by Muslim
students. Gradually, they encouraged him to isolate himself from other
students, including Muslims. He said: 'They were very much anti-western
with anti-western sentiments. And I clearly saw and experienced that
they would use any means to achieve their aims, including violence....
Once they've established that basis of hatred they have you. And then
you start working closely with them, under their political agenda, in
achieving their greater aim.'

Jawad Syed is the protege of an imam who tries to 'deprogram' young
Muslims who have been indoctrinated by radical Islamists. This man,
Sheikh Musa Adami, has been chaplain of London Metropolitan University
since 2002. Adami's group is called the Luqman Institute of Education
and Development. Despite his concerns about Islamic extremism, Adami
failed to recognize the extremist literature which proliferated in
Waheed Zaman's Islamic Society, at his own university.

In November 2006, Adami's charity reported that Islamist activists were
operating at Brunel University, Bedfordshire University, Sheffield
Hallam University and Manchester Metropolitan University. The Luqman
institute was deprogramming up to ten students from Brunel University.

The Sunday Times reported that at Sheffield Hallam University in 2006,
the Islamic Society hosted a lecture by Sheikh Khalid Yasin. This US
preacher is a convert from Christianity, who has said: 'There's no such
thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend.' Yasin interprets
literally the injunction in the Koran (Sura 4:34) that men should be
able to beat their wives.

The Muslim chaplain at London's Goldsmith's College is Shakeel Begg, who
is also the imam at Lewisham & Kent Mosque in Ladywell, south London. In
late 2006, he gave a lecture to Muslim students at Kingston University.
Here, he encouraged his audience to fight jihad. He said: 'You want to
make jihad? Very good... Take some money and go to Palestine and fight,
fight the terrorists, fight the Zionists.'

In October 2006, a lecture was held at Staffordshire University,
entitled 'The true word of God - the Koran or the Bible.' The lecture
was given by a former member of Al-Muhajiroun.

Access to universities is still fairly easy for those who are not
registered students. On November 7, 2006, Dhiren Barot (pictured) was
sentenced to a minimum of forty years' jail for his plots to commit
terrorist atrocities in New York, Washington, Newark and Britain. Among
his plans, the convert from Hinduism, had included a plan to create a
'dirty bomb' or 'radiological dispersion device. His plans involved the
radioactive substance Americium-241 and, as revealed by the Metropolitan
Police Press Bureau, they were not idle fantasies. They contained clear
details (which have been blacked out for security purposes) based on
scientific information. To gather data for his plans, Barot had used a
forged pass to enter Brunel University.

Imperial College is a prestigious university in west London, with a good
reputation for nuclear research. In November 2005, it introduced a ban
on Muslim face-veils, as a security procedure. However, despite its
vigilance, this university is not without risk. On December 27, 2006, it
was revealed that investigators from Scotland Yard's Counterterrorism
Command made an extensive inspection of the university's security. They
focused particularly on the nuclear research facilities.

The university has its own nuclear reactor, and with inspectors from the
Environment Agency and the Health Protection, Scotland Yard officers
checked the nuclear facilities, and took stock of radioactive isotopes.
They also did extensive inspection at Harefield Hospital, which has
combined its research facilities with Imperial College.

The reason for the inspection has resulted from intelligence which
suggests that Islamic extremists have targeted Imperial College.

Though the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir seem to involve mentally
'preparing' students for the arrival of jihadist recruiters, in 2005,
Mustafa Arif, president of Imperial College's student union, which is
not affiliated to the National Union of Students, said of the group:
'The culture here would never have been to bar them. They were very
small and died out about five years ago. They are nothing compared with
some hotheads you read about. As a Muslim I find Hizb a nonsense.
Physically they are harmless...'

With such attitudes abounding, it is perhaps no wonder that Imperial
College has now been highlighted as a security risk.

Britain's politicians and security services have not always been as
vigilant as they should be in rooting out Islamist extremism from either
communities or educational establishments. The leftists at Britain's
universities have not helped in the attempts to protect against
terrorism.

In November 2006, when the Department of Education and Skills urged
university lecturers were urged to inform police Special Branch of any
Muslim students who appeared to be extremist, Muslims, student unions
and universities condemned the suggestion.

Preachers such as Omar Bakri Mohammed are still influencing British
Muslims to engage in jihad. From his base in Lebanon, Bakri uses the
internet to preach on an almost nightly basis. He recently said about
terrorist attacks upon Dublin's Shannon Airport: 'Hit the target and hit
it very hard, that issue should be understood.'

Bakri explained his position clearly in 2004, when he said: ''We don't
make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and
non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an
unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity.'

The British authorities failed to act against radical preachers such as
Bakri when they began their campaigns of indoctrination. Such negligence
has ultimately led to homegrown suicide bombings and a climate of fear
and tension.

Universities are for education. Because of Britain's complacent climate
of multicultural tolerance, universities are now rife with individuals
who do not seek to share common values of liberty and democracy. It is
ironic that in Britain's establishments of education, there are so many
politically naive activists who still need, more than anyone else, to be
educated about the dangers of Muslim extremism.






5. ISLAMIST EXTREMISTS RECRUITING FOR SOMALI WAR ON UK INTERNET SITES

http://www.zone-h.org/content/view/14481/30/

The UK website Muntadaa.net  has recently issued a call to British
Muslims to travel to Somalia and fight alongside Islamist forces there,
currently under attack by Ethiopian troops and their Somali allies .

Muntadaa is part of a wide network managed by a group of British jihad
supporters known as 'The Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah Wal Jamma' (original
group formed by Omar Bakri) and specifically,  the forum where the above
announcement has been posted  on December 28th is defined as 'A forum
for those who endeavour to be like the  Prophet (SAW) and his
companions(RA)'.

  The message has been posted by a user of the site and it claims that
'The Ethiopians with full international support (from the Christian
crusader regimes) and directly backed by illegitimate Israel (Zionists)
have violated the blood of the Muslims in Somalia. By committing such an
act of terrorism the Muslims in Somalia and nearby lands have responded
to the divine call of Jihad.'

This 'divine call' is the reason why the support to the Jihad all over
the world is considered as Fard Ayn (an individual obligation) by
Islamic people: they are called to fulfil this duty 'financially,
physically and verbally'.

'This honourable act must be carried out according to your own
capabilities because our beloved Prophet Muhammad (saw) said Strike the
Mushrik with you wealth, hands and tongue. [Sunan Nisai]. Therefore no
Muslim (man or woman) has an excuse of doing nothing at all.'


The  link between Muslims is maybe the most valuable  strength of Islam,
that is based on the principle that ' the Muslim Ummah is one Ummah at
the exclusion of all others, their land is one, their war is one, their
peace is one and their trust is one. [Saheeh Muslim]'.

'The Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah Wal Jamma' has been involved in many
initiatives to support  the Islamic CAUSA that have been widely spread
on the internet: last February, for instance, the network created by
Omar Bakri  organized a conference and a manifestation to spread another
appeal, this time from Palestine, to support the jihad against Israel
and in particular to defend AL-AQSA mosque:

'The Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah wal Jamma call upon the Ummah of Rasoul
Allah (saw) to remember that the Mosque of Al-Aqsa is linked to the
belief of each one of us.'


'The Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah wal Jamma call upon all Muslims to
expose the Jewish and Christian conspiracy to keep Muslims divided and
to steal their resources and we urge you to expose them. Verily the real
motive of the occupiers is not to please God but to destroy Al-Aqsa
Mosque in the hope of finding the lost treasure of Sulayman (as).

The Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah wal Jamma call all Imams of Mosques and
Community leaders to motivate Muslims wherever they are to put pressure
on their brothers to rise to do their job of defending the sanctity of
Allah (SWT), his Messenger Muhammad (saw) and the Muslims in this time
of need for indeed Allah (SWT) will account each one of us for our
responsibilities.'

Just a few days before, the group published a message related to the
issue of the Danish pictures on Prophet Mohammed ,  that urged Muslims
to 'RISE TO DEFEND THE HONOUR OF THE MESSENGER MUHAMMAD (SAW)!', and to
join a demonstration in front of the Danish embassy to protest against
'CHRISTIAN CRUSADE AGAINST ISLAM ACROSS EUROPE' .





6. SERBIA, EUROPE'S FRONT LINE AGAINST ISLAM

Britain is lucky enough not to actually border on a Muslim country.
Serbia, on the other hand, borders on Muslim Albania, which is trying to
take over its province of Kosovo, cradle of the historic Serbian nation.
Serbia has fought for centuries against Muslim penetration into Europe,
by means of the Turkish Ottoman Empire and otherwise.  Allowing the UN
to dismember Serbia would be a violation of the UN Charter and a
terrible precedent for Ulster.  The so-called Kosovo Liberation Army is
a gang of Islamist narco-terrorists that have been adopted as pets by
the UN as a sledgehammer against an unsubdued European nation that
refuses to surrender to globalism.

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/joksimovich/005.shtml

In March 2007 it will be eight years since the Kosovo war and the US-led
NATO intervention in gross violation of a host of international laws
including the UN Charter. The Western part of the international
community was determined to resolve the Kosovo status issue by the end
of 2006. However, the UN Kosovo mediator, former Finnish president
Martti Ahtisaari, has delayed his proposal until after the Serbian
parliamentary elections on January 21, 2007 in order to reinforce the
democratic camp within Serbia. There were other important considerations
such as sharp divisions within the Contact Group (US, UK, Germany,
France, Italy and Russia), the veto holding members of the UN Security
Council (US, UK, France, Russia and China) and the 27 member European
Union (EU).

(ON WEB SITE: Map of the Greater Albania that Muslim Albanians in charge
of Kosovo seek to establish by acquiring territory from 4 of their
neighboring countries: Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece.)

The issue can be straightforwardly resolved by staying within the bounds
of the international law and the UN charter which guarantees the
inviolability of borders of all internationally recognized states, their
sovereignty and territorial integrity. A compromise cannot be found
unless the seven-year quest by some Western powers, notably the US and
the UK, for conditional independence is not dropped. Nonetheless,
according to numerous media reports Ahtisaari proposal is likely to
advocate some kind of a conditional independence despite the threat of a
Russian veto in the UNSC. Adherence to the international law is not only
in the interest of stability in the Balkans and thus of Europe but it is
in the US interest as well as other Western powers. German chancellor,
Angela Merkel, has stated that 'Serbia is most important country in the
region. Without a stable Serbia there will be no peace there.'

Background

The Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija, Kosmet in Serbian but for
brevity reduced to Kosovo in this essay, provides identity to the
Serbian nation, a cradle of the Serbian civilization. The international
media ignores the province of Metohija in order to negate 800 years old
existence of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The term Metohija derives from
the Greek word Metox, which refers to lands set aside for the use of the
Church.

The Albanians see Kosmet as a part of Greater Albania or alternatively
ethnically pure sovereign state. To Albanian mafia it is a safe haven
for their criminal operations. To Al Qaeda it is another Balkan
terrorist hub. To the Islamists it is a part of recycled Balkan
caliphate. To the U.S. and Germany it has provided an opportunity to
exploit the Serb-Albanian conflict in order to strengthen their
respective geostrategic positions in the Balkans. President Clinton
often stated that he went to war to defend 'poor Muslims.' Mike Jackson,
NATO top commander in Kosovo who recently retired as Chief of the
General Staff in the British Army, said: 'Of course when we come to
Kosovo in 1999, the West's intervention was almost entirely predicated
on the protection of a Muslim population.'

The NATO bombing campaign did not result in an unconditional surrender,
because of the determination of the Serbian people to defend its
territory, but in a negotiated settlement reflected in UN Security
Council (UNSC) Resolution #1244. The resolution established Kosovo as a
UN protectorate and created the UN Interim Administration Mission in
Kosovo (UNMIK) on an indefinite basis. Maintaining a secure environment
has been assigned to NATO's multinational force called KFOR (Kosovo
Force). Russia and China opposed rewarding the Kosovo Albanians with
independence fearing that the Western powers could use the Kosovo
precedent to weaken their own countries by various Muslim separatist
movements inside their countries. Hence, the political status was left
unresolved. In the resolution the terms 'substantial autonomy' and the
sovereignty of Yugoslavia (now Serbia) are each mentioned three times.
The terms 'self-determination' and 'independence' are not mentioned
once.

UNMIK Failure

The essence of the mission boiled down to a promise made on numerous
occasions: to transform Kosovo into a society in which all citizens
could live in security and dignity. The mission failed from the very
beginning due to rivalry for political power within Kosovo. The Albanian
Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) thugs established civil authorities in 27
out of 29 municipalities before the UNMIK team arrived with only eight
people. The Kosovo Serbs and other minorities, Roma in particular, were
exposed to national, cultural and spiritual genocide. The state of
lawlessness only subsided when apartheid was achieved through
intimidation and harassment driving the Serbs and others minorities to
cluster in ethnic enclaves.

In 2002 UNMIK established eight Human Rights Standards for a behavior of
Kosovo Albanians such as sustainable returns of those ethnically
cleansed, freedom of movement, functioning of democratic institutions,
establishment of rule of law, etc. These standards represented the
essential elements of a stable society. The world was told how these
standards would have to be met before any talks on the Status could be
initiated, i.e. Standards before Status. UNMIK dismally failed in
implementing these standards as exemplified with a number of Serb and
Roma returnees. UNMIK established a Kosovo Privatization Agency which
basically confiscated all state owned property and declared that the
companies have neither ownership nor control over it despite the fact
that Serbia invested over $17 billion since 1970 through
underdevelopment fund derived from taxing ordinary Serbs. In addition,
the KLA appropriated numerous properties with UNMIK not wanting to 'rock
the boat.'

Russell Gordon, an American journalist, reported recently from Kosovo:
'Life for a Serb in Kosovo today is terrifying, expecting to be
attacked, even waiting to die. One hopes at best one will be allowed to
flee alive. Even Serbian children are not safe as the Albanian school
teachers in some villages are letting the small children out of school
to stone Serb UN bus. The Albanians indoctrinate their children from a
young age to hate.' Rada Trajkovic, member of the Serb National Council
in Kosovo, on the occasion of the International Human Rights Day,
stated: 'The only reality is kidnappings ,murders, denial of freedom of
movement, daily plantings of explosive devices on roads used by Serbs,
trading in white slaves and children....Serbs who are completely denied
their rights live in Kosovo with the hope that the civilized world will
help them but also with fear that the next International Human Rights
Day will be even worse, and that there will be much fewer of us then
there are today.'

Muslim Albanians in Kosovo burning down a car in front of the American
soldiers sent to protect lives and property. The car was rumored by the
mob to be owned by a Serb.

Iain King and Whit Mason, who served with UNMIK for years and authored
Peace at Any Price: How the World Failed Kosovo, said in the book:
'International pusillanimity did not honor local mores-it benefited a
small minority of self-styled militants and outright criminals who live
by extortion.' Kosovo became the black hole of Europe as the organized
crime, drug and human trafficking center.
Looking for Way Out

Five years into the mission, the international community started looking
for a way out. The process was slow downed by the March 2004 Kosovo
pogrom in which about 60,000 strong Albanian mobs in an orchestrated
fashion attempted to implement a prearranged ethnic cleansing plan. In
33 violent incidents, aimed at ethnically cleansing Central Kosovo from
the Serbs, the mob clashed with KFOR, UN and local policemen. There were
21 deaths and some 900 injuries. 4,500 Serbs were driven from their
homes. 35 Serbian churches were burned or badly damaged and often
sprayed with KLA graffiti. KFOR/UNMIK was slammed by the human rights
organizations, but the chief instigators were not found.

A paper produced by the OSCE listed ten underlying factors that had
created the conditions for violence. One of them is the perception of
unconditional support from the U.S. While the OSCE report says 'despite
American's diplomat's best efforts to correct this delusion,' this
writer believes that the Albanian perception is essentially correct. Who
else would have allowed once declared terrorists and war criminals to
become statesmen and even the prime ministers!

Despite the pogrom and the fact that Standards were nowhere close to
being met, the UNSC on October 24, 2005 endorsed Kai Eide (Norwegian
diplomat) report and backed the proposal to open talks on the future of
Kosovo. This represents the best evidence that UNMIK was not serious
enough about implementing the standards, it amounted to nothing more
than rhetoric. Former Finnish president, Martti Ahtisaari, was appointed
as the UN Special Envoy. As discussed below Ahtisaari was a wrong man
for the job assuming sustainable stability in the region was the
overriding top objective?

Eide acknowledged that the inter-ethnic relations remained bad, 'biggest
threat to the future of Kosovo...Little has been achieved to create
foundation of a multiethnic society...Property rights are neither
respected nor insured...Illegal construction and occupation of homes is
a widespread phenomenon.' It became obvious to an unbiased observer that
elections, institutions, laws passed during the UNMIK rule cannot secure
democracy unless the rule of Albanian thugs is seriously confronted.
However, there was no willingness in the West to do so. The risk
aversion culture dominated. The instruction from the New York
headquarters to UNMIK was 'do not rock the boat.'

Contact Group Sets Principles

The international community in the form of a Contact Group established
the set of principles: (a) No partition of Kosovo; (b) No return to the
situation before March 1999; (c) No union of Kosovo with neighboring
states; (d) Protection of minorities; (e) Decentralization.

The principles seemed to have been designed to strongly favor the
independence option, in violation of UNSC #1244, before any serious
negotiations took place. Arguments were made that harsh realities on the
ground make Kosovo independence the only viable option, that
independence is the only pragmatic solution, etc. The Contact Group made
a fundamental mistake at their January 31 meeting in London when they
declared that the final solution must be in line with the will of people
in Kosovo. What about the will of the people of Serbia, the people in
whose state Kosovo is? This would have been a legally defensible
position. Reflecting this guidance a senior British diplomat, John
Sawers, told Belgrade shortly thereafter that the West has 'decided'
Kosovo should be independent. Independence would mean that Albania would
have two states. Didn't the Albanians exercise their right of
self-determination by forming Albania in 1913? Now they are supposed to
form another Albanian state on the Serbian territory almost a century
later! This precedent would have destroyed the principles on which the
international law and the European order have been based on without even
scheduling an international conference to amend the 1975 Helsinki Final
Act which was accepted by the U.S. and the EU.

The criterion of no partition is also a strange one since Kosovo
historically has not been a distinct territorial unit with established
borders. In 1946 the Yugoslav communists arbitrarily established Kosovo
borders, as an autonomous province within Serbia. In the Kingdom of
Yugoslavia Kosovo did not exist even as an entity. Moreover, what sense
does it make to say that Kosovo, unlike Serbia proper, cannot be broken
up?

No Legal Case for Independence

A sound legal rationale for independence does not exist. The most
frequently parroted argument has been that the Albanians constitute 90%
of the Kosovo population. This argument, however, has no legal standing
as the international law does not recognize the right of
self-determination in the form of secession of an administrative unit.
In addition to the Helsinki Final Act, which prohibits secession, the
EU, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the
Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a
territory, a population, and a political authority. Obviously, the
Kosovo Albanians do not satisfy these criteria.

The Albanians are a majority in Kosovo but a minority within Serbia.
They became a majority after the Yugoslav communists in 1945, upon
conclusion of the WWII, issued a ban on return of Serbs---Resolution
#343 in preparation for Tito's ambition to establish a federation with
Albania which did not materialize due to rift with Stalin in 1948.  The
Serbs in the Yugoslav Republic of Croatia were a majority in Srpska
Krajina but a minority within Croatia. The Republika Srpska Krajina
(RSK) was not internationally recognized by the Badinter Commission
because it would have violated the international borders after the
ruling on November 29, 1991 that Yugoslav republic borders become
international borders. Ruling on January 11, 1992 did not favor Kosovo
independence. It is also relevant that the Serbs in Kosovo have been
subjected to ethnic cleansing for five centuries during the Ottoman
Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Mussolini/Hitler rule, communist
dictator Tito rule and lastly during the UNMIK protectorate when about
230,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed.
There are many other parts of the world in which various minorities have
overwhelming regional population advantage. In the southwestern Chinese
Xinjiang province (17% of China) less than 1% is Chinese while 99% are
Muslim Ughyurs. Kashmir has a 90% Muslim majority with a 10% Hindu
Pandits. In Ahtisaari home country, Aland Islands belong to Finland
despite the fact that the Swedes constitute the majority. Former
Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia Joe Bissett stated: 'There is no
majority in the world which deserves independence less than Kosovo
Albanians.'

Legacy of Milosevic Rule

Another argument advanced by the Soros mostly funded International
Crisis Group (ICG), the Clinton administration stars like Holbrooke and
Albright and other Albanian lobbyists has been that the Serbs were
disqualified from retaining territorial integrity over Kosovo because of
the Milosevic rule. Ahtisaari served as the Chairman of the ICG. Several
other leading Serb bashers serve or served on the Board. In this
argument the millennium old history apparently starts and ends with
Milosevic. Nothing happened before or afterwards. It should be noted
that Ahtisaari, after negotiating termination of the Kosovo war,
predicted in 1999 that Serbia would lose Kosovo unless it became a
democratic state. The fact that the Serbs removed Milosevic from power
in a 2000 bloodless coup and established a democracy doesn't seem to
count!

Even during Milosevic's rule the fairy tale propaganda stories are used
instead of hard facts. As an example, Milosevic allegedly ethnically
cleansed and deported Albanians. During the vicious fighting between the
KLA insurrection from Albania, supported by the Islamist world,
including Al Qaeda and Iran, as well as by the Western intelligence
agencies, there were some 2000 fatalities on both sides but mainly
between the KLA fighters and the Serbian police. There were
displacements of civilians within Kosovo but that applies to the total
population not only to Albanians. The claim that Milosevic deported some
800,000 Albanians into Macedonia and Albania is nothing short of absurd.
Scores of witnesses testified in The Hague, including a British
journalist on the ground, that the Albanians were by and large running
away from NATO bombs as well as being ordered by the KLA to leave their
homes for Macedonia and Albania. What about the thousands of Albanians
that fled to Serbia proper? About 800,000 Lebanese civilians were
uprooted from their homes during the 34-day Israeli-Hezbollah war. Were
they deported too?

Mustafa Kruja, fascist Prime Minister of Greater Albania, 1942, called
for the extermination of the Kosovo Serb population.

Albanian terrorism in Kosovo dates back to 1912 when the Serbian troops
liberated Kosovo from the Ottoman Empire. During WWII, the Albanian
Balli Kombetar and the 21st Waffen SS Division Skanderbeg committed
merciless persecution of Serbs killing 10-20,000 and ethically cleansing
100-120,000. Massive colonization of Albanians into Kosovo took place,
which continued during the communist dictatorship. Under the 1974
Yugoslav constitution the Kosovo Albanians were granted unprecedented
autonomy. They only had formal links to Serbia but no right of
self-determination. Albanian professor, Dr. Hajredin Hodxa, stated: 'I
have visited more than 60 countries and I have attended the most
important conferences on these problems held in different parts of the
world. I have come to irrefutable conclusion that not a single national
minority in the world has achieved the rights that the Albanian
nationality enjoys in Socialist Yugoslavia. The Albanian nationality
exercises rights equal to those of other nations.' Despite this riots
erupted in 1981 with the Albanians demanding a republic with the
Leninist right of self determination: including annexation to Albania.
It should be noted that the Western powers supported Milosevic in the
timeframe 1995-1997. President Clinton and ambassador Holbrooke in
particular build him up as a peacemaker without whom the Dayton Accords
wouldn't have been possible. After Milosevic stole the municipal
elections from a coalition of Serbian democratic parties, and a 90-day
winter 1996-1997 street demonstrations, the Western powers bailed him
out and enabled him to stay in power. Hence, it could be argued that
whatever he might have done since 1997 the West must accept
responsibility.

Kosovo as Sui Generis Case

Some Western policy makers, such as Undersecretary of State Nicholas
Burns, argue that the process of dissolving Yugoslavia is a unique event
supervised by the UN and carried out with democratic safeguards. Kosovo
as a ward of UN cannot be compared with unrecognized breakaway regions.

Russian president Vladimir Putin gave weight to the Kosovo precedent
idea on Russian TV on January 30th: 'We need universal principles to
find a fair solution to these problems. If people believe that Kosovo
can be granted full independence, why then should we deny it to Abkhazia
and South Ossetia? What is the difference?' Russia has backed these
pro-Moscow separatist enclaves in the post-Soviet region but has so far
been deterred from granting recognition because of long-established
principle of inviolability of borders.

Opening Global Pandora's Box

Kosovo independence precedent could open yet another Pandora's Box in
addition to Iraq. It would threaten to destabilize many corners of the
world as it would encourage secessionist movements in Azerbaijan
(Nagorno-Karabakh), Canada (Quebec), China (Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang),
Cyprus (Turkish Republic), France (Corsica), Georgia (Abkhazia, South
Ossetia), India (Kashmir), Indonesia (Papua, Aceh), Ireland (Northern
Island), Italy (Sardinia), Moldova (Transniestria), Turkey/Iraq/Iran
(Kurdistan), Philippines (Mindanao), Rumania (Transylvania), Spain
(Basque Country, Catalonia), Sri Lanka (Tamil), Sudan (Southern Sudan),
etc. Like Kosovo most of these statelets would not be economically
viable and like tiny newly independent state of East Timor could be
mired in ethnic violence. Lastly there could be consequences within
former Yugoslavia itself, i.e. independent Republika Srpska in Bosnia
and eventual merger into Serbia, Croatian Herzegovina in Bosnia, Serbian
Krajina in Croatia, Albanians in Southern Serbia could demand annexation
to Kosovo, Albanians in Western Macedonia, already called Illyrida,
wouldn't be spared, the virus might infect Albanians in Montenegro and
Greece. Creation of micro-nationalist statelets ultimately could boost
the UN membership to some 400 countries and in the process causing many
perpetual wars. There are 5,000 different ethnic groups in 200
countries.

Kosovo as Jihad

Lack of valid arguments was substituted with a huge well financed,
politically motivated, a pro-Albanian bias on the part of a political
elite on both sides of the Atlantic. As stated above appeasement of
radical Islam appears to be a principal component of this policy. There
are perhaps others which are outside the scope of this paper. It should
be remembered why Clinton went to war as stated above. Clinton's
appeasement of radical Islam was a prominent feature of his foreign
policies. In my book, The Revenge of the Prophet: How Clinton and His
Predecessors Empowered Radical Islam, I have made an assertion that
these policies led to 9/11.

Kosovo Albanian Islamic mujahedeen Aslan Klecka in support for Kosovo
independence poses with a chopping knife used for Islamic ritual
beheadings of Kosovo Serbs.

A part of these political elite is Senator Biden who has now become the
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who stated that
'Pristina is one of rare Muslim cities in the world where the US is not
only respected but adored.' Pristina is some kind of an island in the
Muslim Sea. Before the war 40,000 Serbs lived in Pristina; that number
has been reduced to about 100. In a recent interview with the Financial
Times, Senator Biden lamented how Serbia and Russia are conspiring to
seize defeat from the jaws of victory. For him Kosovo independence is a
'victory for Muslim democracy, a better future for South-East Europe and
validation of for the judicious use of American power...The people of
Kosovo--already the most pro-American in the Islamic world-will provide
a much-needed example of a successful US-Muslim partnership.'

There is an abundance of evidence to prove that for the Islamists Kosovo
is a jihad. In 1992 the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), which
Albania joined the same year, demanded independence for Kosovo. Osama
bin Laden established a base in Albania in 1994. He invested $11.4
million in the Arabic-Albanian bank. In 1997/98 he armed and infiltrated
the KLA. Hundreds of mujahideen joined the KLA. After the 1998 US
embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and 9/11 in particular the US was
successful in neutralizing Al Qaeda cells in Albania but the Islamist
interest is currently concentrated in Kosovo. As a matter of fact Kosovo
is currently a White Al Qaeda training center... Recently Western
intelligence officers provided Defense & Foreign Affairs with
documentation, including NATO maps of 16 terrorist and combat training
camps and depots, plus a network of safe houses and support locales.

A terrorist attack discussed in my book on the Bondsteel American base
was fortunately averted. Explosives for the Madrid and London bombings
came from Kosovo. Eradication of Christianity has taken place. 150
Serbian churches have been demolished while some 400 mosques have been
built. Saudi flag is flying on some of them. In his most recent book
Pakistani President, a moderate Muslim and a key U.S. ally in the war on
terror, suggests that the British MI-6 had recruited Omar Sheikh,
murderer of the Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl, and sent him to
Kosovo to join the jihad. There is little doubt that the Islamists will
declare a victory for jihad if Kosovo becomes independent.

Ahtisaari Mediation: A Farce

UN brokered talks opened in Vienna in February 2006. After eight
sessions Austrian diplomat, Albert Rohan, acting as Ahtisaari deputy
announced in mid-September: 'We're approaching a moment where by talking
alone we won't accomplish the goal. We could talk for another 10 years
and not change anything.' Rohan said that the two sides deadlocked over
how many municipalities should be set up to give Serbs influence in
day-to-day affairs in areas where they form a local majority. The
Albanians declared that the talks ended and threatened violence in the
event the independence decision is delayed. Ahtisaari, who attended only
one session, briefed the UNSC that possibilities for negotiations
between Belgrade and Pristina have been exhausted. Dr. Sanda
Raskovic-Ivic, head of the Coordination Center for Kosovo and Metohija,
reminded the Council that between October 25, 2005 and September 1, 2006
there were 260 ethnic incidents. She concluded: 'Albanians without Serbs
cannot do too much and therefore they should not lightly reject the
reasonable and generous offers coming from our side of the table. In
spite of the evident difficulties, there still exists maneuver space for
an agreement, based on democratic principles and European standards.'

During Vienna talks on August 8, Ahtisaari told the Belgrade negotiators
that Serbia must take into account the legacy of Milosevic's regime:
'Serbs are guilty as people.' With this statement Ahtisaari joined the
advocates of the darkest ideas in the history of mankind on the
collective responsibility of entire nations. This is one of the axioms
of fascism. Even after all Nazi horrors in WWII, including the
holocaust, the Germans were not deemed guilty as people. This was a
perfect timing for resignation.

While it should be reasonable to postulate that Ahtisaari has been
entrusted with the UN mandate of enabling negotiations in order to
achieve a compromise, a historical just solution based on the principles
of international law it is not how he interpreted the mandate. On
several occasions he has advised that compromise and negotiations are
superfluous because a solution already exists that needs only to be
implemented and that is independent Kosovo. This led former U.S.
ambassador to Belgrade, William Montgomery, to state that the talks for
Kosovo future status that are held in Vienna are a 'farce directed by
the international community.' Ahtisaari apparently was led to believe
that Serbia, under huge Western, mostly Anglo-American, pressure would
give up 15% of its territory for some foggy promises of membership in
NATO and the EU. In other words the negotiations were designed to fail
in a similar manner like so called February 1999 Rambouillet Conference
was not a peace conference but a setup for the war. Independence would
be imposed through isolation putting Serbia in a Belarus type of
isolation. Holbrooke and other Serb bashers had publicly threatened that
Serbia had a choice of either becoming a NATO and an EU member or facing
Belarus type of isolation. According to a number of media reports,
Rumania and Bulgaria which have joined the EU on January 1 caught 'the
last train' before the EU shuts its door to future applicants at least
for a long while. The EU is not even willing to talk about the schedules
to applicants from Western Balkans like Serbia any longer.

In the circumstances Kosovo Albanian leaders behaved as if the
negotiating process was intended to be nothing but pro-forma and simply
beginning of a dialogue for preparation of independent Kosovo. In his
final appearance prior to his death, in December 2005, Ibrahim Rugova
said: 'We did not achieve independence (in 2005), but we will have it in
2006.' On the other hand Serbia adopted a European solution for Kosovo:
Respect for the UN Charter and fundamental principles of international
law going back to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. The treaty's
foundation was the doctrine of sovereignty, which declared a state's
domestic conduct and institutions to be beyond the reach of other
states. This doctrine was codified in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act
regarding inviolability of international borders. It clearly leads to
the position that Kosovo could never become independent in a legal and
just way but it could 'only be seized' by legal violence based on force.
Serbia wouldn't accept a declaration of another Albanian state on its
own territory no matter what the reward or punishment may be. As the
Serbian Prime Minister Kostunica said for Serbia the Kosovo status issue
was resolved at the Serbian referendum when the Constitution declaring
the province an inalienable part of Serbia was confirmed.

Incidentally Ahtisaari refuses to condemn Albanian terrorist acts.
During this writing Albanian terrorists dynamited the Zvecan-Kosovo
Polje railway tracts, the railway used by the Serbs. In addition, the
Albanians stoned busloads of Serbs in the Strpce municipality. These
types of terrorist acts are reported by mainstream media but Ahtisaari
chooses to ignore them. The Serbian Prime Minister, Vojislav Kostunica,
has requested a response to the question why Ahtisaari has never
condemned terrorism by Albanian separatists in accordance with his
mandate and responsibilities. 'We must know what it is that is
preventing Ahtisaari from carrying out his responsibilities.'

Flawed Assumptions

Ahtisaari presumably was assured that opposition from Russia would be
somehow removed. Ambassador Montgomery suggests that the Western
international community has relied on two key outdated assumptions:

1. Pressure and deception would finally convince Russia to yield in the
UNSC. If this fails then the UNSC could be bypassed and individual
countries would recognize independent Kosovo. The assumptions were valid
for the Yeltsin era when Russia was weak. Russia is now an energy
superpower which has defined own foreign policies.

2. Serbia would so badly want to integrate into the Euro-Atlantic
institutions, like its neighbors did, that it would be willing to give
up Kosovo. In 2001 and thereabout that assumption was valid. However
various Western blackmails related to the Hague Tribunal in particular
and lack of economic progress discouraged and frustrated the Serbian
population and resulted in apathy and support for the Radical Party with
a nationalist agenda.

While in Washington in the summer of 2006 this writer was told that the
U.S. would buy the Russian and Chinese votes in the UNSC by offering
those favors elsewhere in the world. It is conceivable that Russia could
have been lured if the U.S. agreed to grant independence to Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Transiestria but that has not been the case.

Ahtisaari Calls for Time-out

Ahtisaari was working diligently to deliver a plan for conditional
independence before the year end. However, his plan fell through because
of Russian firm and principled position that the UN Charter cannot be
breached, that the principles have to be universal and that Russia could
only support an agreed upon rather than an imposed solution. To the
disappointment of Albanians he announced a delay after the Serbian
January 21 Parliamentary elections. While undoubtedly the Serbian
elections played a part in his considerations, as the West wants to
reinforce the democratic camp, there were other important factors .i.e.
divisions within the Contact Group, the UNSC and the EU. Divisions in
the UNSC have not changed since 1999. At the November meeting of EU
Council of Ministers, Ahtisaari failed to win support of EU countries.
Spanish representative stated clearly that Spain cannot support any form
of Kosovo independence because in doing so it would violate the
international law, especially the Helsinki Final Act. This position was
supported by Greek and Rumanian foreign ministers. There are other EU
countries with similar positions like Cyprus and Slovakia.

U.S.-Russia Tug-of-War

The U.S. and Russia engaged publicly in a tug-of-war over Kosovo in
December. This has happened at the time when both countries need to
cooperate with resolutions of top-tier issues like Iran, North Korea and
the Middle East.  The U.S. supports conditional independence and wants
to set a timetable. Russia is dead against any deadlines and says that a
solution must be found that satisfies both sides. Russia threatens to
veto in the UNSC any attempt to impose a solution and will not accept
any UNSC resolution that would disregard international law. Sergei
Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, stated: 'The solution could be
only a negotiated solution and I do not see how the Security Council
could associate itself with any idea, which would mean imposing decision
to one of the parties.' U.S. Undersecretary Burns said he couldn't
believe Russia was threatening a veto even before a proposal was
announced and wants the UNSC to adopt a solution by early March.
Subsequently the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs, Daniel Freid sad that Russia plays a constructive role
in finding a solution for Kosovo.

Albanian Blackmail

With no promised decision by the West before the yearend and uncertainty
as to what they are going to be offered in 2007, the Albanians have
concluded that they will gain less than hoped for. So they have reverted
to their traditional policies of blackmailing with violence and threats.
They have also created a working group to draft a constitution and are
talking about unilateral declaration of independence.

On November 28, the day of pan-Albanian celebration of the Flag Day,
demonstrations of some 5000 Albanians turned into riots in which damage
was made to the UNMIK building and other locations in Pristina. The
stones and paint used by the rioters were transported by Kosovo's
Ministry of Labor. Armed clash of a group of masked paramilitaries,
patrolling western Kosovo with the UNMIK established Kosovo Police was
another violent event. The paramilitaries were armed not only with light
weapons but also by rocket propelled launchers and sophisticated night
warfare equipment. They wore black uniforms with patches of the so
called Albanian National Army (ANA). Illegal checkpoints were the KLA
hallmarks. In 2003, the third UNMIK pro-consul, Michael Steiner,
declared ANA to be a terrorist organization. Hashim Thaci, now a top
opposition leader accused the government of 'putting masked men' on the
roads in order to destabilize the province and score political points.

A graffiti on a demolished Serb home in Kosovo reads: 'Kill all Serbs'
(Mort les Serbes)

At a UNSC meeting in New York Russian ambassador Vitally Churkin accused
the leaders of Kosovo Albanians of blackmail because of their
announcements of mass-scale protests and riots in case the UN resolution
is further delayed. 'We can only interpret such statements as an
unacceptable blackmail of the entire international community and
attempts of radical elements to instigate violence.'

Albanian separatist friendly press is predicting a calamity unless the
West delivers independence on the plate. Here is a quote from November
25 issue of the Washington Post: 'Putting-off Kosovo's independence
would only enrage the province's 2 million Albanians and trigger the
Balkan meltdown that the West hopes to avoid.' It is this type of rage
that led to ethnic cleansing of two thirds of pre-war Serbian population
and destruction of 150 Serbian churches and monasteries. The UNMIK
chief, Joachim Rucker, told the UNSC: 'Resolving Kosovo future status as
soon as possible would bring benefits to the entire Balkan region, while
any further delays would only raise tensions and help the cause of
extremists.' STRATFOR, described by some as shadow CIA, predicts even
the next Yugoslav war! Unlike in 2004, KFOR should be ready to handle
such mass-scale protests. If the Yugoslav communists could handle the
1981 riots the KFOR should be able to do it in 2007.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Attending the 12th European Forum in Berlin on December 2 Ahtisaari
said: 'It is stupid to claim that a compromise for the future status of
the province can be reached through negotiations.' Therefore he has been
forced to present his own proposal for a solution. He went on to say
that he never said that the Albanians in Kosovo have right to
independence! International presence of the EU, OSCE and NATO will
continue to be needed. From this it is anybody's guess what his proposal
might be. Of all the temptations of writing a piece like this prediction
is the most dangerous. Nonetheless, my guess is that he will reject the
Serbian offer of substantial autonomy as well as the Albanian demand for
independence but open the door for some form of conditional or limited
or supervised independence, with the word independence not used, with
strong EU/NATO/OSCE presence. It will not contain neither foreign and
defense ministries nor a UN seat. He might even propose for Serbia to
maintain control over Serbian enclaves. Belgrade believes that whatever
he proposes will not be a binding sketch for a solution and that the
real talks between Belgrade and Pristina will ensue.

It appears that Ahtisaari will present his proposal first to the Contact
Group shortly after the Serbian Parliamentary elections on or about
January 26. The proposal then goes to Belgrade and Pristina for
comments. The Contact Group will meet again in Vienna on the 26th of
February. It will then reach the UNSC some time in March with an
objective of arriving at a new resolution. The EU would take over from
UNMIK like it happened in Bosnia. The takeover would take place in 3-6
months.

A Way Forward

Srdja Trifkovic has ably summarized the present situation: 'Kostunica
will not be duped, Serbia will not cave in, Russia will not relent, and
the Albanians will not give up on what they had been promised by those
who had never had the right to make the promise in the first place.'

The right thing to do is for those 'who had never right to make the
promise' to recognize that independence would represent a sharp break
from well established international laws and the 1975 Helsinki Final Act
in particular. Hence, they should abandon bankrupt conditional
independence quest and convince the Albanians that their aspirations for
self-rule are met by reasonable Serbian government offer of
internationally guaranteed substantial autonomy as opposed to the one
guaranteed by the Serbian constitution only or the Yugoslav constitution
in the past. This would satisfy the Contact Group criterion of no return
to pre-1999 situation. As an important recent precedent 6.8 million
Catalonians have recently secured a wider degree of autonomy from Spain.
Alternatively the Albanians should be told that they must enter into
internationally mediated negotiated process. The international mediation
team could consist of representatives from the EU, U.S., Russia and the
UN (the Middle East Quartet).

The Bush administration is the only one who could convince the Albanians
since they do not trust the Europeans. Besides it is in its
self-interest to do so for many reasons:

. Stability in the Balkans, which is a part of Europe's stability, is
badly needed at the time of laser focus on Iraq and Afghanistan. All key
players in the Contact Group and the EU have issued statements to the
effect that the proposed solution for Kosovo should deliver stability in
the region. Argument that independence could deliver sustainable
stability is deeply flawed. How could a gross violation of the
international law bring sustainable stability without a prior revision
of the 1975 Helsinki Act? The Serbian Prime Minister stated that the
prospect of Kosovo independence and the breakup of Serbia is the 'most
dangerous and most destructive' idea in Europe today.

. Perception that the U.S. behaves as a principal violator of
fundamental international laws, to some as   an international pariah,
would further downgrade its standing in the law-abiding portion of the
world.

. Avoidance of a domino effect of secessions in other parts of the world
which would create a chaos in the world affairs.

. U.S. Kosovo Envoy, Frank Wisner, told the Serbian government that the
U.S. wanted good relations with Serbia and humiliating Serbia most
certainly cannot meet that objective.

. Serbia recently joined NATO's Partnership for Peace Program and thus
de facto became a U.S. ally.

. Bypassing the UNSC would unnecessarily aggravate relations with Russia
and China when their cooperation is badly needed to confront nuclear
proliferation in Iran and North Korea.

. In the war on terror arena, delivery of a victory to radical Islam
sends a wrong message to the world. Terrorism, terror, ethnic cleansing,
eradication of Christianity, drug trafficking and sex slavery must not
be rewarded.

. It is an opportunity to jettison the burden of the Clinton
administration mismanagement of Balkan policies. President Bush
personally should take an opportunity do distance himself from
ideological opponents like Soros as well as from the Clinton holdovers
in the State Department who misled him.

. U.S. business investment in Serbia must be preserved. Currently the
U.S. is number one foreign country investor in Serbia. US will continue
to be an economic partner if Kosovo stays a part of Serbia.
























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BNP ECONOMICS BULLETIN
JANUARY 8, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk




1.  CHRISTMAS OVERSPENDING BANKRUPTING PEOPLE

Another sign of the rampant excesses of consumerism.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/01/05/britain-barclays-hsbc-markets-e
con-cx_po_0105markets11.html

The British spent so much on presents and partying this past holiday
season that thousands will have subsequently gone bust. A new report by
British financial services group Grant Thornton predicts that a third of
all personal bankruptcies filed in the first quarter of 2007 will be
because of excessive spending at Christmas.

The bigger picture is more worrying. While the rate of insolvencies in
the rest of Continental Europe is falling, Britain's is rising.
According to research by Euler Hermes, a credit insurance manager based
in Paris, personal insolvencies in Britain will have risen 8% in 2006,
and 3% in 2007.

But in Germany, insolvencies are expected to decrease by 13% in 2006 and
stabilize in 2007. The unification of the country's East and West had
prompted a 300% surge in personal bankruptcies between 1991 and 2002,
but insolvencies have been in decline since 2004 as the economy has
gradually improved.

France is also expected to see its consumer bankruptcies decline 3% for
2006, thanks to some improvements in the economy, while Italian
insolvencies are expected to stabilize in 2006 and 2007.

Britain, however, is out of step with those improving economies.
According to Grant Thornton, around 106,000 Brits will have declared
themselves bankrupt for 2006, marking a 57% increase from the 67,600
filings of 2005, and more than double the 46,650 that were filed in
2004.

The problem lies in wanton consumer spending, a growing
buy-now-pay-later culture, and Britain's economy. ‘Several developments
such as interest rate rises, sky-high utility bills and increases in
unemployment have contributed to pushing more people into financial
trouble,’ said Mike Gerrard, head of Grant Thornton's personal
insolvency practice.

One country Britain seems to have much in common with is the United
States, where ‘buy-now, pay-never’ is running at full steam. Around 0.5%
of Americans declared themselves bankrupt in 2006, compared with 0.2% of
Britons.

An 11th-hour rush by thousands to file just before the Bankruptcy Abuse
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act came into force in October 17,
2005 caused U.S. bankruptcies to shoot up 19% that year.

Now those numbers are merely dipping. There was a welcome 10% drop in
personal bankruptcies in 2006, but the rate is expected to jump again,
by 10%, in 2007.

Some minor solace for the United States: Britain's consumer debt
mountain is comparatively larger than the Land of Liberty's. It's worth
$2.46 trillion, while in America (where the population is almost five
times larger), it's $2.19 trillion, as reported by the Fed in August
2006. Last year, the Brits borrowed almost £14 billion ($27 billion) in
unsecured lending alone.

Gerrard concurs with Euler Hermes that personal insolvencies in Britain
will continue edging up. ‘While they may eventually settle down before
next Christmas, they will do so at an already high level,’ he said. ‘At
present, there are simply not the conditions in place to expect a sudden
drop.’


It all makes gloomy reading for Britain's banks, who have seen a
disconcerting rise in bankrupt customers entering individual voluntary
agreements, an easy form of insolvency where lenders write off a portion
of the debts.

British banks like HSBC (NYSE: HBC - news - people ) and Barclays (NYSE:
BCS - news - people ) are now complaining of aggressive promotion of
IVA's by insolvency practitioners as a cheaper and easier alternative to
bankruptcy. They want the industry to be more tightly regulated, though
it's likely consumer borrowing will continue unabated.






2.  SLOWING HOUSING MARKET IN UK

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/01/05/britain-housing-halifax-markets
-econ-cx_po_0105markets14.html

A scorching housing market has been fuelling Britain's economy in recent
years, so it was a worrying surprise for some when a report by Halifax,
Britain's largest mortgage lender, showed on Friday that house prices
had fallen 1% in December. It's the first time since June that the
growth had faltered.

Analysts had been expecting a rise of 1%, and the decline weighed on the
annual rate, which fell to 9.9% instead of coming in at the predicted
10.2%.

A recent increase in interest rates may well have held back demand. The
Bank of England raised the rate at which it lends to banks twice in the
last 5 months, bringing it up to a five-year high of 5%.

Does the December blip herald a bigger slowdown? Martin Ellis, Halifax
chief economist, says no. ‘House prices fell by 1% in December, but it
remains too early to conclude that this indicates a genuine slowdown in
the housing market.’

Take the numbers from the final quarter of 2006 and things look healthy
enough. Prices were 4.2% higher than the previous three months, marking
the strongest quarterly rise since the sizzling second quarter of 2004.

But the market for 2007 won't be as hot as 2006 or even 2005, which saw
8% growth, the bank said. Halifax predicts house prices in Britain this
year will rise 4%. Already-elevated interest rates, along with the
chance of a further rise this February, could hold back demand, said
Ellis, and so could greater pressure on household finances and subdued
real earnings growth.

The findings stand out against other housing surveys that have shown the
U.K. housing market in prime health. Rival mortgage lender Nationwide
said British house prices had actually jumped 10.5% in 2006, with a 1.2%
rise in December. It predicted a rise of 5% to 8% in 2007.

It is worth noting that the 10% rise in prices for 2006 were well ahead
of most analysts' expectations 12 months ago. They'd predicted growth of
2% to 3%.





3.  POLITICIANS MUST HELP SMALL BUSINESS

http://www.freelanceuk.com/news/2053.shtml

One of Britain’s most vocal small business supporters has singled out
top politicians to safeguard micro businesses from an imminent economic
struggle.

The Federation of Small Businesses says without action from several
high-profile figures the sector will suffer, leading to adverse effects
for the whole UK economy.

Carol Undy, the group’s national chairman, has restated the commitment
small businesses make to the UK economy, alongside the list of New Year
Resolutions, drafted for the great and good.

‘Small businesses employ over 58 per cent of the private sector
workforce,’ Ms Undy said.

‘A huge number of public figures have a major impact on these employers
and their 12 million employees. These businesses produce half of
Britain’s GDP, representing £1,200 billion per year.

‘To ensure that 2007 is a year in which small firms can grow, employ
more people and keep their existing employees in jobs we have
resolutions for many of these public figures.

‘If they keep them 2007 will be a prosperous year for the whole country.
If they don’t, small businesses will suffer and with them will go the UK
economy.’

The FSB’s New Year Resolutions are as follows:

• Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, to ensure an orderly transition of
power to a new PM that does not affect business confidence or the
economy in a negative way.

• David Cameron, Leader of the Conservative Party, should remember that
business creates the wealth to fund public spending. Support from this
sector should not be taken for granted, especially when examining green
policies that can hit businesses hard if not drawn up correctly.

• Sir Menzies Campbell, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, to continue the
push of LibDem ideas for a general reduction in regulations for small
businesses.

• Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, should step up to the plate
and bat for business by clamping down on the gold plating of EU
regulations by UK civil servants.

• John Reid, Home Secretary, must recognise the role that businesses can
play in improving community safety with the right support, advice and
response from the police. The police need to be more proactive in their
response to crimes against businesses. This will ensure that businesses
continue to be the 'eyes and ears' of communities in the counter
terrorist effort.

• John Fingleton, Chief Executive of the Office of Fair Trading, to make
the OFT do what it says on the tin. He should prevent the unfair market
created by the supermarkets from continuing the carnage of small shops
on the high streets across Britain, which reduces competition and
consumer choice.

• Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State at the Department for Transport,
to remember that investment in new and existing roads is crucial for
small businesses to survive. A balance must be maintained between the
economic and environmental health of the country.

• Alistair Darling, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to
protect the post office network and reversing his decision to cull 2,500
post offices. To continue the fight in the EU against scrapping the UK
opt-out from the Working Time Directive.

• John Hutton, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to remember that
without employers there would be no employees. He must make sure pension
requirements in his White Paper do not bankrupt small businesses.

• Sir Digby Jones, the Government’s new Skills Tsar, to remember that
99% of businesses are small and thus need training to be on-site to
avoid losing a large proportion of a business’ workforce all at once. He
should also make sure that any employer-led Commission for Employment
and Skills must have full and proper small business representation.

• Sir Michael Lyons must reject calls for business rates to be returned
to local authority control. For the sake of the economy this cannot be
allowed to happen.

• Bill Callaghan, Chair of Health and Safety Commission, should make
sure that the HSE Simplification plan delivers real improvements for
business in terms of reduced costs and time spent filling in forms and
doing risk assessments. This can be achieved without putting worker
safety at risk.

• James Purnell, Minister at the DWP, to recognise that the
responsibility for saving for retirement lies with the individual, not
the employer, and to remember that if businesses' money is diverted to
pensions less will be spent on growing the business.

• Malcolm Wicks, Minister of State at the Department of Trade and
Industry to give small businesses a fairer deal in the energy market.





4. FRANCE CONSIDERS RADICAL TAX CUTS FOR CORPORATIONS

France has long suffered economic stagnation, due in part to high taxes.
Britain used to have a tax advantage, over most of the rest of Europe,
but Blair's tax increases have wiped this out.  The article below is a
sure sign that the high-tax faith is growing stale even for its biggest
believers.   Still, one must be careful, when bribing big business with
tax cuts, that they actually deliver the job growth they're being bribed
to produce.  Otherwise, tax cuts for them simply dump more tax liability
onto the rest of us.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/01/05/cnfran
ce05.xml

French president Jacques Chirac has proposed slashing France's
corporation tax rate from 33pc to 20pc to relaunch its flagging economy,
a move that could leave Britain behind as the high-tax laggard in
Europe.

‘We have to take action on corporation tax to save our businesses and
help create new ones. The goal should be to reduce it to 20pc in five
years,’ he said in his New Year speech, proposing a long-term goal of
just 10pc.

Mr Chirac also stepped up his attacks on the strong euro policy of the
European Central Bank, calling for political intervention to force down
the exchange rate.

‘Europe must take its destiny in hand,’ he said. ''It is time that it
exercised its economic sovereignty by setting an exchange rate policy
and a change in trade policy to take account of globalisation.

‘It's time the Union adopted an aggressive commercial policy, using the
same weapons as other powers,’ he said.

Mr Chirac appeared to be referring to a clause in the Maastricht Treaty
giving EU ministers the final say over the exchange rate policy, a power
that could enable them to dictate policy changes to the ECB.

The markets have so far dismissed such comments by French politicians as
empty posturing, noting that Paris appears to be isolated.

But EU veterans warn that this could be a grave misjudgment of political
realities in Europe.

The reinvention of France as a low-tax tiger is a startling idea for
those wedded to the French social model, with 53pc of the economy still
in state hands.

But Paris is becoming alarmed by the growing economic gap between France
and Germany, certain to widen further as Berlin pushes through
‘Thatcherite’ cuts in employer costs and a fall in corporate tax from
25pc to 16pc (30pc with regional and city taxes).

While the flat tax revolution across eastern Europe has run out of
steam, rates of 18pc in Poland, 16pc in Romania, and 13pc in Russia,
among others, are still in place and exerting a powerful effect.

Almost all of Europe has trimmed tax rates in recent years. The two
exceptions have until now been France and above all Britain, where the
share of economy in state hands is creeping ever upwards.

George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, said that Labour inherited an
economy where only 10 of the world's 30 rich states had corporation tax
lower than Britain. Now 20 are lower, and soon perhaps 21.





5. MORE SOPHISTRY ON IMMIGRATION-UNEMPLOYMENT LINK

This article is a fine case-study of a classic piece of immigrationist
sophistry: Immigration doesn't cause unemployment, therefore immigration
is good for British workers.

For a start, the premise is wrong.  Immigration does raise unemployment,
because even if new jobs are created as fast as immigrants arrive, the
availability of cheaper and more desperate foreign labour will cause
employers to shun the least attractive indigenous workers -- like the
old, who are suffering increased age discrimination as a result.

Furthermore, the main impact of immigration, in a flexible economy like
ours, in which new jobs are easy to create, isn't against the quantity
of jobs, it's against their *quality*.  An increased supply of labour
drives down labour's price, as with any other commodity.

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/money/news/finance/immigrants-not-driving-une
mployment-up-$1037291.htm

There is ‘little evidence’ to suggest that economic migrants from EU
accession states, the Middle East and Asia, have increased unemployment
in Britain, a Bank of England report has concluded.

The UK's population has grown at a fast pace since the turn of the
decade, in part due to the influx of workers from eastern Europe, but
unemployment rates have accelerated.

However, the report from David Blanchflower, a member of the Bank's
monetary policy committee, says that migrant workers have had ‘little to
do’ with increasing levels of unemployment, particularly among 18 to
24-year-olds.

Mr Blanchflower instead attributes the rise to ‘greater slack’ in the
labour market.

More than half a million workers from recently acceded eastern EU states
work in the UK, and campaign groups have claimed that Britons have had
their wages lowered as a result.

But the BoE report, delivered to the Cambridgeshire Chamber of Commerce,
dismisses this, stating that increased levels of immigration had reduced
overall unemployment and raised the supply potential of the economy.

‘In addition, this recent immigration appears to have continued to
reduce inflationary pressures,’ the study says.

Despite saying itself that economic migrants have had a positive impact
upon Britain's economy, the government has introduced restrictions on
Romanian and Bulgarian citizens seeking work in the UK.

The Baltic states became the EU's newest members when they joined on
January 1st this year.



6. EUROPEANS FURTHER SOURING ON EURO

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2524244,00.html

Non, nein, no: Europe turns negative on the euro Matthew Campbell, Paris

A French diplomat who spent the festive period at his weekend home in
rural
France was astonished last week when a man in a DIY shop presented him
with a
bill in francs, rather than in euros, with the excuse: 'I am sorry,
monsieur,
most of my clients prefer it that way.'

In a world apart from the euphoria with which 12 nations -- excluding
Britain --
switched to the euro on New Year's Day in 2002, hostility towards the
single
currency is growing as a wider malaise over an expanding Europe takes
hold.

'I suppose in some places the euro has just never really caught on,'
said the
diplomat. 'I feel very pessimistic about the future.'

Slovenia will drop its tolar tomorrow in favour of eurozone entry, but
in 'old
Europe' the fifth anniversary of the introduction of the euro will be
more an
occasion for bitter reflection than fanfares.

The high denomination notes may be popular among criminals, but one poll
released last week showed that 52% of French people believe that 'the
euro is a
bad thing', blaming it for inflation, and 57% felt that the euro had
been bad
for them 'personally'.

A quarter of the population, it emerged, still calculated prices in
francs, a
process that the government has not seemed to discourage by requiring
all
receipts to display, alongside the euro total, the equivalent price in
francs.

It might not matter if this disgruntlement were limited to rural French
bakers
who spit at the mention of euros: the French are in a peculiar mood, as
they
demonstrated most spectacularly by rejecting the European Union's
proposed
constitution in a referendum last year.

More worrying to Brussels, however, was evidence that resentment of the
euro was
spreading to other parts of the empire. A majority of Germans, it turns
out,
also long to have their old currency back, according to another recent
poll,
because of inflation that they blame on the 'teuro', as they often call
the euro
in a play on teuer, the German word for expensive.

The Spanish and Irish seem relatively content with their lot but the
same cannot
be said of Italy, where 64% of people acknowledged feeling 'little' or
'not at
all' at ease with the European currency, which they blame for higher
prices.
Some politicians have called for the country to re-establish the lira to
revive
economic growth.

This was all a far cry from the 'very great federating power' that
Hubert
Vadrine, the former French Socialist foreign minister, imagined for the
euro.

'It has not had the effect of an integration lever that its founding
fathers
dreamt of', said the left-wing Liberation newspaper in an editorial last
week.
'At a time when the European project has broken down. . . you have to be
a
Slovene to feel any enthusiasm about joining the eurozone.'

In Slovenia the opinion polls showed that the euro was still generally
popular
because it represented a final break with the communist past.

Yet even here there were fears about rising prices and other EU
newcomers are
hardly racing to the starting line. Hungary has abandoned its previous
target of
adopting the euro in 2010, and Estonia has decided to move its target
entry date
to 2010 from 2008, despite its economic success.

Those already in the club are hardly a good for it. By contrast with
German angst
about the euro, which is strongest among the least well-off, Gallic
grumpiness
with the euro system extends to the political classes that once
trumpeted its virtues.

Various French politicians, including Dominique de Villepin, the prime
minister,
Segolene Royal, the Socialist presidential candidate, and Nicolas
Sarkozy, her
most likely opponent from the centre-right, have displayed a populist
streak by
making the European Central Bank their favourite political punchbag as
the
presidential election draws near.

The bank's officials last week seemed to take pride in the strength of
the euro
and news that the value of euro notes in circulation was this month
likely to
exceed the value of circulating dollar notes. There was similar
satisfaction
over Iran's recent announcement that it would keep foreign reserves in
euros
rather than dollars.

For French politicians, however, the euro's strength was to blame for
making
French goods too expensive overseas and hampering growth. This ignored a
host of
other factors, such as high French labour costs. However, it played well
with an
electorate terrified of being left at the mercy of market forces. It
also
highlighted the protectionist instincts of even supposedly reform-minded
politicians such as Sarkozy, the son of a Hungarian immigrant, who has
revolutionised French politics with American-style campaigning
techniques and
who likes to advertise himself as the candidate of 'rupture' with the
past. Like
Royal, though, he was in favour of bringing the European Central Bank
under
politicians control.

All of this reflected a wider European malaise: rejection of the EU
constitution
has left Europe rudderless and adrift just as it is set to expand to 27
members
next month. The inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania will
make the EU more unwieldy than ever. But as Germany takes over the
rotating
presidency of the organisation this week the Franco-German axis,
traditionally a
motor of decision making in the EU, has never seemed weaker.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has put more effort over the past
year
into repairing relations with America and befriending George Bush, its
president, than she has into building ties with France.




7.  EU WANTS INCOME TAX

An even more audacious grab for our pay packets -- and don't imagine
that the £510
per year quoted below is the end of it!

http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=973

Brussels politicians have drawn up proposals to create a European income
tax
which would leave Britons shelling out £510 a year to the superstate.

The rumbling row over the size of Britain’s rebate from Europe
resurfaced as
an influential committee of MEPs received recommendations for sweeping
reforms to the Union’s current funding system.

The Committee On Budgets is facing calls to scale back the current
system in
favour of a form of direct taxation when Britain’s rebate is
re-negotiated
in 2008.

A report drawn up for the committee urges MEPs to ‘seriously consider
the
necessity of ensuring a direct and transparent link’ between the Union’s
resources and its citizens.

It adds that, ‘in the search for such a link due consideration be given
to
paying part of an identified direct tax’ to the Union’s budget.

The recommendations, drawn up by the Committee On Regional Development,
have
been seized on by the UK Independence Party as evidence that Britons
face
the threat of a Brussels tax on their pay packets on top of ordinary
tax.
Currently the Treasury pays £9billion to the European Union and receives
a
rebate of up to £3billion annually.

Our Euro funding is not sliced from earners’ income tax but is raised
primarily on levies on imports into Britain and on VAT charged on most
goods
we buy.

A portion is also taken from Britain’s own gross domestic product.

John Whittaker, UKIP MEP, warned that Britons would end up out of pocket
if
Brussels looked to raise revenue through direct taxes.

‘British taxpayers are already paying through the nose to fund the EU,
the
last thing they need is yet another tax,’ he added.

‘The EU is not directly accountable to the people of this country. To
give
these unelected bureaucrats power over tax is a massive step in the
wrong
direction. Most people see the EU wasting money left, right and centre.
The
last thing we need is them having more to pour down the drain.’

The committee’s paper accepts that while national contributions will
remain
an important source of the Union budget it proposes a revenue-raising
system
to reduce the importance of national contributions.

Rebates which are ‘manifestly no longer justified’ should be abolished,
the
paper adds, while any new system should ‘reflect the relative prosperity
of
each member state and its ability to pay’.

The paper suggests a direct tax could take the form of an income tax or
a
corporation tax.

The rebate was won by former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984 to
make up for the huge farming subsidies enjoyed by France and Germany.

But even with the rebate, Britain remains the second highest Union
contributor out of an institution that will, from tomorrow, boast 27
member
states.

In 2005, Tony Blair suggested Britain would be prepared to give up some
of
the £3billion rebate in return for cuts in German and French farm
subsidies
but French President Jacques Chirac refused to give way.

The Union budget is still dominated by farming payments which eat up
£37.73billion, or 49 per cent of all spending.








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Iwas surprised at the depth of coverage of the above mentioned
compared to the coverage given to the death of an ITN REPORTER at the
hands of US troops in IRAQ
IS IT PARTISAN