Reparations For Slavery - WE DEMAND ALL MIDDLE EAST OIL

How often is it we get some Black radical on the news, usually accompanied with a cringing, servile, witless Middle Class White liberal idiot, demanding the West pay reparations for Black slavery.

We also have the constant demands from Jewish groups for reparations due to the Holocaust constantly in the media and on the news.

Yet we never hear anyone White demanding Muslims and the Middle East pay the West and White Europeans reparations for the centuries of their raiding Europe as part of the Islamic White slave trade.

I demand that all the profits from last of the oil in the Middle East be handed over to the people of Europe as reparations for the Muslim slave trade that afflicted Europe for generation after generation, and that we control the remaining oil to build fairer nation states in the Middle East. After a decade we will leave and they can take charge of decent functional nations instead of hell holes run by Islamist nutters.

In fact we should invade, colonise and take the oil from Middle East nations not only for their crimes in the past as regards the white slave trade but also because they are only using the money from oil to subsidise Wahhabist and Shi'ite fanaticism in our own countries, Islamist terrorism, Global Jihad and the slaughter of their fellow Muslims.

The money from oil they obtain from us merely funds their own insanity and genocidal wars and fratricidal wars - they are better off without the oil money. The oil money has sponsored wars between Muslim sects, nations and groups based on a variety of issues that have killed millions of innocent muslims since the oil was discovered.

If Islam had remained a desert sect for feuding camel herders then the millions of Muslims killed in its name would not have died. Once the oil money flowed into the Middle East then the money was spent on buying tanks, jets, bombs and guns that were then used to kill their own fellow Muslims.

Oil has destroyed the Middle East, murdered millions of Muslims in internecine wars and led to the rise of Islamist terrorism and the Global Jihad.

Without the oil money the ammunition would soon run out, the tanks would break down, the jet fighters would be grounded and the bombs would stop falling on the innocent muslims of the Middle East.

Oil and Islam equals war and genocide.

If you support the 'Reparations For The White Slave Trade Movement' then lets start spreading the idea.

In fact we can critique recent history using this idea.

The Iraq War was a war for oil, we all know this.

In the context of reparations for the White Slave trade by Islam, then that invasion of Iraq was justified.

In fact we should not ever leave Iraq - we should take the oil and keep the money simply as a way to ensure we get reparations for the crimes of the Islamists involved in the White Slave Trade.

Instead of acting like peacekeepers in Iraq, the British Army should have gone in as conquerers and just took the oil.

We should also do the same across the entire Middle East.

Every time we pay for our petrol we are in effect subsidising the people that once enslaved our ancestors.

Why should we do this ?

We should take what is rightfully ours and morally ours.

Send the British Army back into Iraq - but not to ponce about acting as policemen and social workers - but as real occupiers who will use an iron fist to smash anyone or any groups that threaten them and our control of their oilor who threaten to destroy the nation building process and social infrastructure building process that is required to ensure the future demographic rise of the Middle East does not lead to poverty and increasing Islamist radicalisation.

Crush the Islamist beast now, build stable and non-corrupt nation states in the middle east run for the benefit of the people of the area and not the mullahs, royalty or westen oil companies and can ensure the Middle East does not explode in the future.

A British Army prepared to quickly pull the trigger on terrorists and insurgents, to execute all muslims that plant bombs in markets and mosques to kill other innocent Muslims in the name of sectarianism and to repress Islamist groups like the Shi'ite Militia's in Iraq would soon stabilise the country.

The problems in Iraq were caused by us not knowing what we were doing there - one one hand we had Western governments talking utter bullshit about WMD's and 45 minute missiles and democracy building when in reality all they wanted was the oil.

If they had gone in with that simpe vision in mind, and applied direct military force proportionate to that aim, then the chaos after the invasion would not have occured.

A generalised slaughter of insurgents, terrorists and Islamist lunatics would have enabled a decent Iraqi society to be built instead of the present corrupt regime afflicted with terrorism and sectarianism.

The Iraq War failed as it wasnt fought as a war, it was dressed up and fought like some pathetic media pantomime where soldiers were forced to act as social workers.

We should have gone in hard, cleaned out the Islamist terrorist filth and enabled a new nation to be built on the rubble.

What was required was Nationalist Western governments acting as occupying powers to ensure that any profits from the oil were and are spent on social programmes to help the poor and to build internal infrastructure developments that would have created a far more stable Iraq, and hence a far more stable Middle East, than the present situtation where the corrupt Iraqi government is allowing its own corrupt leaders and to profit its own corruption and to profit corrupt Western oil companies, mercenary corporations like Blackwater and crooked building companies like Haliburton.


Whilst the corrupt Iraqi government and its corrupt functionaries grow rich and Western oil companies grow rich, the Iraqi people grow poorer. At the same time sectarianism is increasing, Iran is increasing its influence in the country and sooner or later a full scale civil war will break out between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites and this will also involve a war between Iraq and Iran as Iraqi Nationalists fight against the increase in Iranian influence in the country.

The same situation applies across the entire Middle East.

A Saudi Arabia under the control of a Nationalist British government with the British Army in the country prepared to confront and kill any Islamist extremists who are funding terrorism in the West and funding the wars between Muslims based on sectarianism would create a far more stable nation than the present corrupt theocratic junta and its parasitic Western governments run by the oil companies that profit from the chaos.

If we invade a nation then do the job properly - dont put our troops at risk by getting them to act like Haringey social workers in uniform, simply tell them to stock up on ammunition and mow down any terrorist, Islamist or lunatic who gets in their way.


Instead today we are buying their oil and they are using the money gained from us to buy tanks, jet fighters and weapons that are used to repress their own people and attack fellow Muslim nations.

We at the same time profit from the wars between Middle East nations, the ongoing slaughter of Muslims in sectarian wars and allow corrupt Western oil corporations to grow rich and the corrupt regimes they support.

We have created the worst of all possible worlds.

We should have gone in as occupiers and ensured that for a decade we controlled those nations and cleared out all the Islamists, terrorists and lunatics.

Instead we allowed them to take charge of Iraq, and merely sowed the seeds of future wars.

Invading armies must act as invading armies.

That is how you win not just the war, but also the peace.


The articles below reveal the facts about the Islamist slave trade ;




http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3951

In the 1200 years of Arab slave trading, millions more Africans were enslaved by Arabs and treated with far greater cruelty than were ever by white men. As Thomas Sowell, a descendant of slaves himself, has pointed out more Europeans were enslaved and taken to North Africa by Barbary Coast pirates alone than there were African slaves taken to America.


http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/05/europeans-as-victims-of-colonialism.html


In 2008, demands were made that France must make reparations for its colonial past in Algeria. I’m not an expert on French colonial history, but if I recall correctly, the French were at least partly motivated for establishing themselves in Algeria due to the Barbary pirates, who continued their evil activities well into the nineteenth century.

Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, has developed new methodical enumeration which indicates that perhaps one and one-quarter million white European Christians were enslaved by Barbary Muslims just from 1530 through 1780 — a far greater number than had been estimated before:


Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland. Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.

Robert C. Davis explains in Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800:


Italy was among the most thoroughly ravaged areas in the Mediterranean basin. Lying as it did on the frontline of the two battling empires, Italy was known as ‘the Eye of Christendom’…Especially in areas close to some of the main corsair bases (western Sicily is just 200 kilometers from Tunis) slave taking rapidly burgeoned into a full-scale industry, with a disastrous impact that was apparent at the time and for centuries to come. Those who worked on coastal farms, even 10 or 20 miles from the sea, were unsafe from the raiders — harvesters, vine tenders, and olive growers were all regularly surprised while at their labors and carried off. Workers in the salt pans were often at risk, as were woodcutters and any others of the unprotected poor who traveled or worked along the coasts: indigents like Rosa Antonia Monte, who called herself ‘the poorest of the poor in the city of Barletta [in Puglia],’ and who was surprised together with 42 others, including her two daughters, while out gleaning after the harvest, 4 miles outside of town. Monasteries close to the shore also made easy targets for the corsairs.

Fishermen were especially at peril. During a period in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Muslim pirates set up semi-permanent bases for themselves at the mouth of the Bay of Naples, attacking small ships. Surrounded by hostile seas on all sides,


the seventeenth century represented a dark period out of which Spanish and Italian societies emerged as mere shadows of what they had been in their earlier, golden ages. For individuals themselves, we can see that the psychological traces of this trauma lasted beyond the time that the larger societies had rebuilt themselves as modern states, long after ‘even the idea ha[d] been lost of these dogs that had brought so much terror.’ It continued just below the surface of the coastal culture of the European Mediterranean even into the first years of the twentieth century, when, as one Sicilian woman put it, ‘The oldest [still] tell of a time in which the Turks arrived in Sicily every day. They came down in the thousands from their galleys and you can imagine what happened! They seized unmarried girls and children, grabbed things and money and in an instant they were [back] aboard their galleys, set sail and disappeared….The next day it was the same thing, and there was always the bitter song, as you could not hear other than the lamentations and invocations of the mothers and the tears that ran like rivers through all the houses.’

Corsairs from cities in North Africa — Tunis, Algiers etc. — would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact was devastating — France, England and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost abandoned by their inhabitants.

At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior. The lives of European slaves were often no better than the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, which later tapped into the preestablished Islamic slave trade in Africa. “As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” Davis says. While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally — in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys.

Young Englishmen risked being surprised by a fleet of Muslim pirates showing up at their village, or being kidnapped while fishing at sea. Thomas Pellow was enslaved in Morocco for twenty-three years after being captured by Barbary pirates as a cabin boy on a small English vessel in 1716. He was tortured until he accepted Islam. For weeks he was beaten and starved, and finally gave in after his torturer resorted to “burning my flesh off my bones by fire, which the tyrant did, by frequent repetitions, after a most cruel manner.”

Throughout most of the seventeenth century, the English alone lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers. One American slave reported that 130 American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793 (which prompted the eventual military response from the Americans mentioned above). In his book White Gold , Giles Milton describes how regular Jihad razzias in Europe extended as far north as distant Iceland in the middle of the North Atlantic, where some local villagers in well-documented attacks in the seventeenth century were kidnapped and dragged off to North Africa as slaves.

As Murray Gordon writes in his book Slavery in the Arab World , the sexual aspects of slavery were disproportionate important in the Islamic world. “Eunuchs commanded the highest prices among slaves, followed by young and pretty white women.” Usually, the high cost of white female slaves made them a luxury which only rich Muslims could afford:

“White women were almost always in greater demand than Africans, and Arabs were prepared to pay much higher prices for Circassian and Georgian women from the Caucasus and from Circassian colonies in Asia Minor. After the Russians seized Georgia and Circassia in the early part of the nineteenth century and, as a result of the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829 under which they obtained the fortresses dominating the road into Turkey from Circassia, the traffic in Circassian women came to a virtual halt. This caused the price of Circassian women to shoot up in the slave markets of Constantinople and Cairo. The situation was almost completely reversed in the early 1840s when the Russians, in exchange for a Turkish pledge to cease their attacks on their forts on the eastern side of the Black Sea, quietly agreed not to interfere in the slave traffic. This unrestricted trade brought on a glut in the Constantinople and Cairo markets, where prices for Circassian women brought them in reach of many ordinary Turks and Egyptians.”

After whites, Abyssinian (Ethiopian) girls were considered the “second best” alternative. Depending on lightness of skin, attractiveness and skills, they cost anywhere from a tenth to a third of the price of a Circassian or Georgian woman. As long as Circassian, Slavic, Greek and other white women were available at affordable prices, Arabs always preferred them to blacks. It is interesting to notice that this pattern was established long before the European colonial period. These days when everything bad in the world is attributed to Europeans, it is common to say that “racism” is a legacy of the European colonial period. In fact, there is a virtually universal preference for light skin, especially for women, in the Middle East, in Asia and in Africa itself, which was present long before European colonial rule in these countries.

According to Murray Gordon, “For a better part of the Middle Ages, Europe served as a valuable source of slaves who were prized in the Muslim world as soldiers, concubines, and eunuchs. It would not long compete with Africa in this trade if only because Christian Europe, with few exceptions, rejected the notion that its people could be enslaved, particularly for the despised Muslim world. In the greatest part of black Africa, by contrast, there were few governments or chiefs that could interpose their authority against the merchants who arrived by caravan and ship in quest of slaves. Lamentably, many African chiefs often became middlemen in the trade by rounding up inhabitants of nearby villages and exchanging them for an assortment of manufactured wares.”

Slavery never faced as powerful opposition in Muslim societies as it sometimes did in Christian ones. Toward end of the nineteenth century, questions about slavery were finally raised, but only due to Western influence and military pressure. Murray Gordon writes:


That slavery persisted as long as it did in the Muslim world — it was only abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1962 and as late as 1981 in Mauritania — owed much to the fact that it was deeply anchored in Islamic law. By legitimizing slavery and, by extension, the sordid traffic in slaves (for which there was no legal sanction), Islam elevated these practices to an unassailable moral plan. As a result, in no part of the Muslim world was an ideological challenge ever mounted against slavery. The political structure and social system in Muslim society would have taken a dim view of such a challenge. The sultan of the Ottoman Empire and the potentates who ruled in other Muslim lands owed their thrones as much as to their being religious as well as secular leaders and were therefore duty bound to uphold the faith. Part of this obligation was to assure the normal functioning of the slave system which was an integral part of Islamic society that is embellished in the Koran.

All the way back to the Old Kingdom in ancient Egypt, slavery was an important component of Africa’s trade to other continents. However, according to Robert O. Collins and James M. Burns in A History of Sub-Saharan Africa , “The advent of the Islamic age coincided with a sharp increase in the African slave trade.” The expansion of the trans-Saharan slave trade associated with the Sahelian empire of Ghana was a response to the demand in the markets of Muslim North Africa:

“The moral justification for the enslavement of Africans south of the Sahara by Muslims was accepted by the fact they were ‘unbelievers’ (kafirin) practicing their traditional religions with many gods, not the one God of Islam. The need for slaves, whether acquired by violence or by commercial exchange, revived the ancient but somnolent trans-Saharan trade, which became a major supplier of slaves for North Africa and Islamic Spain. The earliest Muslim account of slaves crossing the Sahara from the Fezzan in southern Libya to Tripoli on the Mediterranean coast was written in the seventh century, but from the ninth century to the nineteenth there are a multitude of accounts of the pillage by military states of the Sahel, known to North African Muslims as bilad al-sudan, (‘land of the blacks’), of pagan Africans who were sold to Muslim merchants and marched across the desert as a most profitable commodity in their elaborate commercial networks. By the tenth century there was a steady stream of slaves taken from the kingdoms of the Western Sudan and the Chad Basin crossing the Sahara. Many died on the way, but the survivors fetched a great profit in the vibrant markets of Sijilmasa, Tripoli, and Cairo.”

Moreover, what was to become in ensuing centuries a worldwide European expansion and exploration of the seas started in Portugal in the fifteenth century with the initiatives of Prince Henry the Navigator (1394-1460). Incidentally, the exploration of the African coasts began with the Portuguese in 1415 capturing the North African port of Ceuta, which had been used as a base for Muslim Barbary pirates in their attacks on the coasts of Portugal, capturing the locals as slaves and depopulation several regions because of repeated attacks.

One of the most important reasons for this early European overseas expansion was the desire to get away from the iron grip Muslims had enjoyed over the European continent for so long. Norman Davies in his massive book Europe: A History elaborates:


Islam’s impact on the Christian world cannot be exaggerated. Islam’s conquests turned Europe into Christianity’s main base. At the same time the great swathe of Muslim territory cut the Christians off from virtually all direct contact with other religions and civilizations. The barrier of militant Islam turned the [European] Peninsula in on itself, severing or transforming many of the earlier lines of commercial, intellectual and political intercourse. In the field of religious conflict, it left Christendom with two tasks — to fight Islam and to convert the remaining pagans. It forced the Byzantine Empire to give lasting priority to the defence of its Eastern borders, and hence to neglect its imperial mission in the West. It created the conditions where the other, more distant Christian states had to fend for themselves, and increasingly to adopt measures for local autonomy and economic self-sufficiency. In other words, it gave a major stimulus to feudalism. Above all, by commandeering the Mediterranean Sea, it destroyed the supremacy which the Mediterranean lands had hitherto exercised over the rest of the Peninsula.

No European peoples suffered more from Islamic colonialism than those in the Balkans. Sir Jadunath Sarkar, the pre-eminent historian of Mughal India, wrote this about dhimmitude, the humiliating apartheid system imposed upon non-Muslims under Islamic rule: “The conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent is the ideal of the Muslim State. If any infidel is suffered to exist in the community, it is as a necessary evil, and for a transitional period only.…A non-Muslim therefore cannot be a citizen of the State; he is a member of a depressed class; his status is a modified form of slavery. He lives under a contract (dhimma) with the State.…In short, his continued existence in the State after the conquest of his country by the Muslims is conditional upon his person and property made subservient to the cause of Islam.”

This “modified form of slavery” is now frequently referred to as the pinnacle of “tolerance.” If the semi-slaves rebel against this system and desire equal rights and self-determination, Jihad resumes. This happened with the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire, who were repressed with massacres, culminating in the genocide by Turkish and Kurdish Muslims against Armenians in the 20th century.

The Balkans, with its close connections to Byzantium, was a reasonably sophisticated region in medieval times, until the Ottomans Turks devastated much of the area. One of the most appalling aspects of this was the practice of devshirme, the collecting of boys among the Christians who were forcibly converted to Islam and taught to hate their own kin. Andrew G. Bostom quotes the work of scholar Vasiliki Papoulia, who highlights the continuous desperate struggle of the Christian populations against this forcefully imposed Ottoman levy:


It is obvious that the population strongly resented…this measure [and the levy] could be carried out only by force. Those who refused to surrender their sons— the healthiest, the handsomest and the most intelligent — were on the spot put to death by hanging. Nevertheless we have examples of armed resistance. In 1565 a revolt took place in Epirus and Albania. The inhabitants killed the recruiting officers and the revolt was put down only after the sultan sent five hundred janissaries in support of the local sanjak-bey. We are better informed, thanks to the historic archives of Yerroia, about the uprising in Naousa in 1705 where the inhabitants killed the Silahdar Ahmed Celebi and his assistants and fled to the mountains as rebels. Some of them were later arrested and put to death.

The Christian subjects tried for centuries to combat this evil practice:


Since there was no possibility of escaping [the levy] the population resorted to several subterfuges. Some left their villages and fled to certain cities which enjoyed exemption from the child levy or migrated to Venetian—held territories. The result was a depopulation of the countryside. Others had their children marry at an early age…Nicephorus Angelus…states that at times the children ran away on their own initiative, but when they heard that the authorities had arrested their parents and were torturing them to death, returned and gave themselves up. La Giulletiere cites the case of a young Athenian who returned from hiding in order to save his father’s life and then chose to die himself rather than abjure his faith. According to the evidence in Turkish sources, some parents even succeeded in abducting their children after they had been recruited. The most successful way of escaping recruitment was through bribery. That the latter was very widespread is evident from the large amounts of money confiscated by the sultan from corrupt…officials.

Lee Harris in his book The Suicide of Reason describes how this practice of devshirme, the process of culling the best, brightest and fittest “alpha boys,” targeted the non-Muslim subject populations:


The bodyguard of Janissaries ‘had the task of protecting the sovereign from internal and external enemies,’ writes scholar Vasiliki Papoulia. ‘In order to fulfill this task it was subjected to very rigorous and special training, the janissary education famous in Ottoman society. This training made possible the spiritual transformation of Christian children into ardent fighters for the glory of the sultan and their newly acquired Islamic faith.’ Because the Christian boys had to be transformed into single-minded fanatics, it was not enough that they simply inherit their position. They had to be brainwashed into it, as we would say today, and this could be done most effectively with boys who had been completely cut off from all family ties. By taking the boys from their homes, and transporting them to virtually another world, devçirme assured that there would be no conflict of loyalties between family and duty to the empire. All loyalty would be focused on the group itself and on the sultan.

This practice drained the strength of the Christian populations. Harris again:


The culling of these alpha boys had two effects, both of them good for the Ottoman Empire, both bad for the subject population. By filling the critical posts in the Ottoman Empire with boys who had been selected on the basis of their intrinsic merit, and not on their family connection, the Empire was automatically creating a meritocracy — if a boy was tough, courageous, intelligent, and fanatically loyal, he was able to work his way up the Ottoman hierarchy; indeed, as we have seen, he become a member of the ruling elite, despite having the formal title of being the sultan’s slave. The Ottoman Empire was both strengthening itself through acquiring these alpha boys, and weakening its subject population by taking their best and brightest. Thanks to the institution of devçirme, the more ‘fit’ Christian boys who would be most likely to be the agents of rebellion against the Empire become the fanatical Muslim warriors who were used to suppress whatever troubles the less ‘fit’ Christian boys left behind were able to cause.

The most enduring legacy of the centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule in the Balkans is the presence of large indigenous Muslim communities. Srdja Trifkovic explains in Kosovo: The Score 1999-2009, a book dedicated to the anniversary of the NATO bombing of Serbia, which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Christian Serbs by predominantly Muslim Albanians:


The Balkan Peninsula is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse regions in the world, especially considering its relatively small area (just over 200,000 square miles) and population (around 55 million). Of that number, Eastern Orthodox Christians — mainly Greeks, Bulgars, Serbs and Slavic Macedonians — have the slim majority of around 53 percent; Sunni Muslims (11 million Turks in European Turkey and a similar number of Albanians, Slavic Muslims and ethnic Turks elsewhere) make up 40 percent; and Roman Catholics (mainly Croats) are at around 5 percent. Those communities do not live in multicultural harmony. Their mutual lack of trust that occasionally turns into violence is a lasting fruit of the Turkish rule. Four salient features of the Ottoman state were institutionalized, religiously justified discrimination of non-Muslims; personal insecurity; tenuous coexistence of ethnicities and creeds without intermixing; and the absence of a unifying state ideology or supra-denominational source of loyalty. It was a Hobbesian world, and it bred a befitting mindset; the zero-sum game approach to politics, in which one side’s gain is perceived as another’s loss. That mindset has not changed, almost a century since the disintegration of the Empire.

Trifkovic warns that “The Christian communities all over the Balkans are in a steep, long-term demographic decline. Fertility rate is below replacement level in every majority-Christian country in the region. The Muslims, by contrast, have the highest birth rates in Europe, with the Albanians topping the chart. On current form it is likely that Muslims will reach a simple majority in the Balkans within a generation.”

The wars in the Balkans are a direct result of the legacy of Turkish Muslim colonialism. So why does nobody demand that the Turks should pay reparations to their former subjects, starting with the Armenians, who suffered a Jihad genocide less than a century ago, and continuing with the Serbs, the Bulgarians, the Greeks, the Croatians and others who have suffered hundreds of years of abuse and exploitation at their hands?

There is a persistent myth that the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions happened only because Europeans “plundered” other continents. This is easily disproved since there is little correlation between which countries had extensive colonial empires and which developed sophisticated scientific-industrial economies. Portugal had several colonies and was an active participant in the transatlantic slave trade, yet it is one of the poorest countries in Western Europe, in sharp contrast to Sweden, Switzerland or Finland which have no colonial histories.

ANDREW MARR - BBC Apologist for Genocide

Image - Andrew Marr in this months Playgirl " Gollem Gets Butt Naked ".





Image - Andrew Marr interviews the Butcher of Baghdad, the Murderer of the Serbs and the accomplice of KLA ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. " Yes my precious, I will make sure you keep the ring of power ".




It appears that Andrew Marr of the BBC,, one of the premier liberal fascists of the state media, attacked the BNP on his show this morning.

YAWN - what a surprise (not!).

Here is a quote from Andrew Marr as stated in a brilliant article released by John Pilger a few days ago.

http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-pilger-bang-on-target.html

" The same was true of the lawless attack on Iraq in 2003, behind which the cross-party Establishment and the political media rallied.

Andrew Marr stood in Downing Street and excitedly told BBC viewers that Blair had “said they would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right.” When Blair’s army finally retreated from Basra in May, it left behind, according to scholarly estimates, more than a million people dead, a majority of stricken, sick children, a contaminated water supply, a crippled energy grid and four million refugees.

As for the “celebrating” Iraqis, the vast majority, say Whitehall’s own surveys, want the invader out. And when Blair finally departed the House of Commons, MPs gave him a standing ovation – they who had refused to hold a vote on his criminal invasion or even to set up an inquiry into its lies, which almost three-quarters of the British population wanted.


Andrew Marr is a lickspittle of the Labour government and an apologist for genocide.

He and his media cronies beat the drums for the Iraq War and then sought to act as apologists for the total disaster it became.

To be abused and villified by scum such as Andrew Marr is our greatest validation.

When devils cast stones at you and call you a sinner, then you know you truly are one of the good.

The Iraq War = A complete waste of time

Thanks to Chris for this article below.

What this article reveals is that the Iraq War has been a total failure.

The only winners have been China and Iran.

China now will get most of the Iraqi oil and Iran will have political control over most of the Iraqi political system.

By signing this contract with China the Iraqi government has betrayed the dead British soldiers and American soldiers who fought to obtain access to Iraqs oil.

The whole war has been a complete waste of time.

This deal with china also means that Obama cannot pull out the US troops from Iraq - as Iraq has revealed that it would rather trade with China than the US.

This means the US will be forced to retain its military presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabi ( and hence Mecca ) and Kuwait.

This means Al Qaeda and Islamists will continue to attack America as the US will remain in the land of Dar- Al- Islam.

Obama can change nothing - China won the Iraq War.


China's Shrewd Long-Term Oil Plan: What America Can Learn.

Iraq recently signed its first oil deal in 35 years with a foreign company.

And – quite surprisingly to many observers – the company wasn’t one of ours.



Not surprisingly, the U.S. news media barely acknowledged the deal – even though the agreement was major news throughout the rest of the world.

According to reports from Baghdad, the 22-year deal between the Iraqi government and the China National Petroleum Co. involves $55 billion, or 87% of Iraq’s current total revenue at a conservative long-term estimate of $100 a barrel.



The deal is actually a renegotiated version of a 1997 agreement between China and a Saddam Hussein-led Iraq. That original deal included production-sharing rights, but profits, The New York Times reported. The payments will be made in cash – and won’t be “in kind” payments of crude oil, the newspaper said.

While this deal, on its face, appears to be just another global oil-services contract, it’s actually a very significant development in the hunt for long-term energy supplies. In fact, it actually demonstrates that – when it comes to nailing down those long-term oil supplies – China is an expert, and is playing a very deep game. And the outcome of that game will certainly have substantial long-term implications for consumers and investors both here in the United States, and in markets abroad. Here’s why:

With estimated reserves of 115 billion barrels, Iraq is tied with Iran for the world’s No. 2 position. It trails Saudi Arabia, which has estimated reserves of 264 billion barrels, according to estimates from the Energy Information Administration.
In a country where electricity is in short supply, the oil produced from the Ahdab Oil Field will help fuel a planned power plant that would be one of the largest in Iraq. By helping Iraq with this key initiative, China can expect to gain a solid foothold in one of the most oil-rich nations in the world, analysts say.
At the end of the day, the deal clearly highlights something that most U.S. investors haven’t focused on yet – namely that the eventual winners in this game may not be such well-known giants as Chevron Corp. (CVX), ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM), or other household names. Deals like this one and the host of others that are undoubtedly close behind suggest that tomorrow’s winners may have names most English-speaking investors can’t pronounce, since they’ll be distinctly Arabic or Chinese in nature. [Two recent installments of Money Morning’s popular new “Buy, Sell or Hold” feature have focused on Chevron. Take some time to peruse the original story, as well as the update.]
China’s Shrewd Long-Term Oil Plan
The important thing for investors to understand now is that oil ownership, as I have said for many years, is an illusion. It does not guarantee price, nor profit. What really matters in the end is having secure supply lines and sources from the Middle East (and other parts of the world).

Under this new contract, CNPC will provide technical advisors, oil workers and equipment to help develop the Ahdab oil field southeast of Baghdad, said Assim Jihad, a spokesman for Iraq’s Oil Ministry.

While China won’t participate in the profits from the oil it helps pump, it is shrewd enough to realize there will be long-term benefits. Analysts who see the bigger picture here agree with our view.

Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, a former Iraqi oil minister, told The Times:

There are some political profits for China. They need access to Iraq, and when they need oil, at least the Iraqi people will feel that China has done something for them.

And, that’s not all. Before 2003, Iraq had oil agreements with China, Russia, Indonesia, India and Vietnam – three of which included production-sharing agreements, The Times reported. But the big jump in oil prices, the new government and a myriad of other changes that have taken place since that time prompted Iraq to reconsider the terms of those deals, Iraqi officials said.

Iraq continues to negotiate other service contracts with ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDS.A) (RDS.B), Total SA (TOT), BP PLC (BP), Chevron, and some smaller oil companies. The deals have been reduced in length from two years to one after Iraq took a lot of flak for not putting the contracts out for competitive bidding.

But China’s contract was the first major one to be completed – and for one simple reason, Jihad, the Iraqi Oil Ministry spokesman, said. CNPC had “wide experience in this field,” and because many foreign oil companies were not willing to come to Iraq.

China has apparently learned how to play the global oil game with a pro’s touch. Ironically, it was the United States that crystallized this vision.

By invading Iraq, the United States dealt China’s central planning commission an embarrassing wakeup call when the second Gulf War summarily wiped out China’s oil interests in Iraq.

When that happened, China’s central planners realized two things:

The status quo in the global oil game had changed.
And China’s double-digit economic miracle could not be sustained with only a few oil suppliers.
What China fears most is that there will not be enough oil to go around in the very near future and that a U.S.-dominated supply chain could effectively “strangle” China’s growth.

So, it has done what the United States and other great powers have done at other times in history and gone on a buying spree from Darfur to Peru that’s turned heads and ruffled feathers all across the world.

What’s been especially frustrating for hapless Western leaders who do not understand that their actions caused this in the first place, is that China’s not afraid to do business with rogue nations like Iran, Sudan and Burma. It has even gotten chummy with Venezuela and Russia – much to the consternation of our present administration.

It’s a virtual certainty that China will maintain this policy going forward. My contacts in China and Africa have told me point blank that China’s leaders “don’t care about human rights or nukes or hostile governments. What matters is anyone who provides oil to China no matter what the rest of the world thinks.”

So, in as much as the U.S. media has dismissed this deal as only one in a long string of recent Chinese oil purchases, it’s arguably the most important deal yet. The reason: It suggests that China will go to extraordinary lengths to obtain the oil it wants and needs.

To add to its stable of captive oil suppliers, China will pay far more money, endure limitless criticism for ignoring human-rights issues and endure harsher business conditions than our companies can or will undertake. While U.S. firms must worry about sanctions, bad publicity or simply security, China worries about one thing and one thing only – getting oil.

It’s a lesson initially learned from us. Then they refined it. Perhaps it’s time we re-learned this lesson from China.

More CIA Dirty Tricks

" What did you do in the war daddy ? ",
" I died for a lie my son. "





Letter linking Iraq and al-Qa'eda was forged by US spies says new book

The White House ordered the CIA to forge a hand-written letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein fabricating a visit by an al-Qa'eda operative two months before the September 11th attacks, according to a new book.

Last Updated: 10:40PM BST 05 Aug 2008

Ron Suskind claimed in "The Way of the World" that the letter was designed to portray a fictitious link between the dictator's regime and al'Qa'eda as a justification for the Iraq war.

Branding Mr Suskind's book "gutter journalism", the White House flatly denied as "absurd" any notion that it had ordered any forgery.

Suskind writes that the letter's author, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had been in contact with the Bush administration and MI6 before the March 2003 invasion.

"The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001," Suskind writes.

"It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq - thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qa'eda, something the Vice President's Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link."

The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a senior Iraqi intelligence official stating "there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion".

Suskind states that according to Nigel Inkster, the former assistant director of MI6, the intelligence service sent Michael Shipster, one of its top officers, to Jordan for meetings with Mr Habbush. Suskind writes that Mr Inkster confirmed that Mr Shipster was told by Mr Habbush that there were no illicit weapons in Iraq.

Mr Inkster added that Saddam was focused on his own image and was worried about how he was viewed by Iran, and that Saddam didn't think a US invasion "was a serious proposition".

Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of British intelligence, was also interviewed by Suskind, who writes that Sir Richard confirmed Mr Shipster's meetings and report.

Suskind says he asked why Mr Blair did not act on the spy's intelligence and Sir Richard is quoted as saying that Mr Shipster's mission was an eleventh-hour "attempt to try, as it were, I'd say, to diffuse [sic] the whole situation".

The former spy chief added: "The problem was the Cheney crowd was in too much of a hurry, really. Bush never resisted them quite strongly enough.

Yes, it was probably too late, I imagine, for Cheney. I'm not sure it was too late for Bush."

The letter's existence was first reported in December 2003 after a copy was passed to The Sunday Telegraph by a member of Iraq's transitional government.

Genes and Culture and the New Zionists

The recent events with Robert Spencer have awakened me to an issue that has had very little attention, this being The New Zionism.

Unilke the old style of Zionism, which was an aspiration of the Jewish peoples of the world for a national Jewish homeland, the New Zionism is neither Jewish nor nationalist.

It is based on the eschatology of the Christian Fundamentalists and concerns a theological climax where the risen Christ will return and either convert the Jews of Israel to Christianity or slaughter them all.

In America the political system is dominated by two blocs, this being the pro-Israel lobby groups and the Christian Fundamentalist lobby groups. Both wield vast power and it was their influence which allowed George Bush to wage his neo-conservative war for oil with their support (and also to appease the rising Third power and lobby bloc in the US which is Saudi Arabian economic bloc which supplies the US with its oil and which funds both Republican and democratc political campaigns and organisations linked to candidates in those elections).

Whilst the Christian Fundamnentalists whipped up public support for the war, the Jewish pro-Israel lobby used their power and influence in the media to propagandise the war in the US media. Whilst the left like to demonise George Bush, they remain silent about the role the pro-Israel media and Christian Fundamentalists had in acting as the 'drummers' for the War In Iraq.

The funny thing about the New Zionists is that the Jewish community in the US, which has always been mainly leftist in attitude, is now in a large part firmly anti-Zionist, same as in the United Kingdom.

It is only the non-Jewish, Christian Fundamentalists and Neo-Conservatives who are the main supporters of Israel.

This brings us neatly to the issue of race and culture. The Bush adminstration invaded Iraq as the Neo-Conservatives believe that they can export democracy to the world and this idea is the basis of their global project to 'fight the war on terror and democratise the Middle East'.

The flaw in this is quite clear and the example of the Jewish people is an apt lesson. Wherever in the world the Jewish people have lived throughout history they have retained their identity, heritage and culture. They have lived in many, many nations and always remained Jewish both in terms of identity and culture. Once Israel was created it became naturally a jewish state with a Jewish identity and Jewish cultures. The 'democracy' of Israel was built by Ashkenazi jews of mixed European and Jewish blood and culture. Therefore democracy took root in Israel as it was rooted in the genes of the people that built Israel.

The same thing happened when the British Empire was built as the British emigrants re-created their own British culture in foreign lands they settled in. The Irish did it in America as did the Italians, the Koreans etc.

Wherever a racial group with a specific culture settle, the re-create their own culture again.

This brings us to the idea that democracy can be exported to the Middle East.

Democracy is a European creation rooted in the genes of Europeans. The Neo-Conservative idea that it can be exported is based on an assumption that genes and culture are not linked in any way which has been proved throughout history to be a baseless theory.

Therefore the Neo-Conservative project will fail.

Seeing as the ideological guru of the Neo-Conservatives was Leo Strauss, a Jewish emigre to the US, then the neo-cons of the Bush administration must have been aware that the propaganda about 'exporting democracy' was bogus as the very fact that their guru retained his Jewishness when he came to America was direct proof that race, genes and culture are linked.

Strauss was Jewish in Germany both in terms of his self identifcation of himself as Jewish both by blood and culture, and also Jewish in America both in terms of his self identification of himself as Jewish by blood and culture.

Therefore the idea that genes and culture are not linked was bogus from the beginning.

Transplant the individual and you also transplant with them their culture.

Even the Communist experiment in China and Russia could not erase this inbuilt genetic and cultural wiring in individuals. The Communists spent 70 years using the communist jackboot, gulags, Laogai and machine guns to erase all knowledge of genes and culture in the people they conquered (The Lamarkian genetic theory was itself an attempt to disengage genes and culture with an nurture not nature theory of human development) and they failed.

The Communists prohibited all forms of ancestral identity, brainwashed the masses from birth with communist theory and created a monolithic Communist culture to replace ethno-specific cultures and national identities.

A 100 million dissidents were slaughterd in order to ensure that all notions of identity and culture were eradicated.

Yet as soon as the Communist regimes in Europe collapsed, the ancestral identities of those peoples and their ancestral cultures sprang forth once more.

Old national identities were reclaimed, ancestral cultures recreated and the old hatreds between them all were rekindled.

If the Communists with their gulags, mass killings and brainwashing could not destroy the link between genes and culture then what idiot in the Bush adminstration thought they could !!!!

People such as Robert Spencer on Jihad Watch are guilty of the most disgusting disingenousness when they say that genes and culture are not linked and that universal human rights must replace the reality of genes and cultures.

They are either idiots or liars.

Robert Spencer is simply a neo-conservative tool of the New Zionists and the Pro-Israel bloc in the US.

Universalist values such as the concept of universal human rights translate eventually into a repressive universal world government, a universal global culture based on consumerism that will kill the eco-sphere of the planet, a universal economic system that destroys national control over internal social development and turns individual human beings into dehumanised abstract entities. Individuals become defined not by who they are, but simply by the collection of rights they are given, may possess and may claim. Government degenerates from the defence of nation, culture, environment and people into the defender of abstract rights whilst liberty becomes simply a collection of meanigless rights ( most of which are only able to be claimed via the legal system at vast expense which ensures only the rich have any real and meaningful rights ). National cultures become homogenised globalised consumer cultures where the values and culture of all nations converge to a mean that is neither freedom nor cultural in any way. National control over the economic system is denuded as the concept of 'economic justice' is linked with Globalism via the WTO and the UN etc and rampant destruction of the national environments of the planet destroys the planet.

But the fact is that this repressive system based on the theory of universal rights for all will fail, just as the Communists failed.

The Communist plan of 'Universal Brotherhood' of the Communist International was as asinine and insane as the Neo-Conservative plan for the democratisation of the planet. The Neo-Conservatives are truly the heirs of the Trotskyites.

In the real world the only universal truth is that genes and culture are linked and no amount of ideological nonsese, invasions, mass murders and plastic democracies will change that fact.

We are who we are and no ideology can change that.

The Energy Economy and the Peak Oil Crash

The main factor in economics is not capital.

This may come as a shock to Marxists and Capitalists who both follow the same essential economic critique.

Both Marx and Smith, and their economic theories, were products of their time and neither contain any reference to the one essential factor in human society and economics. Marx wrote Das Kapital in 1867 after witnessing the tumult of early 19th Century Europe. It was in this period following the endless round of civil, national and religious wars in Europe that the traditional power structures in society, those of Royalty, Church and the Aristocracy had become morally and financially exhausted. The new rising class in society was that of the capitalist and the financer who was funding the industrial expansions of that time. Therefore Marx placed his primary focus on the primacy of capital, and the capitalist class, as the predominant factor in economics. Marx wrote that he viewed " the economic formation of society as a process of natural history " and that it was the study of economics that could be used to understand the evolution of society. Marx saw society, economics, workers, capitalists and capital as all parts of the same nexus and capital, and capitalists, as the dynamic that drove society onwards.

Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776 and the book covers his ideas on the role of self interest in economics, the division of labour the function of markets and the implications of an international laissez faire economic system based on free enterprise. The idea that an ' invisible hand ' of self interest guides the most efficient use of resources in a nations economy is his most well known theory. Adam Smiths ideas are the basis of most modern economic systems, even the Chinese Communist Party have now embraced the principle that self interest is an important factor in national economics.

Yet both Marx and Smith missed the most fundamental factor in all human societies, in all economic and social actions - that of energy.

Commodities and goods are the product of a vast expenditure of energy. In order to access raw materials then mines must be built, workers trained and fed and the raw material extracted. These raw materials then must be refined and processed into a form that can be used in the production of goods. The refined materials must then be transported to factories where workers, who have to be fed, can then use various industrial techniques requiring vast amounts of energy to produce the finished goods. Capital in this process only relates to the ability of capitalists to purchase or transfer energy and raw materials from one location and one form to another using labour they employ. As long as the raw materials, labour and energy is available to produce the goods then the worth of capital represents the ability of capitalists to use that energy and labour to produce goods.

Economics is primarily an alchemical process, it transmutates capital into energy then uses that energy to produce goods that are then sold for more capital than that used to initiate the process in the beginning.

The value of a finished 'commodity' is represented by the amount of energy, labour costs and raw materials required to produce it. Profit is simply the price over and above manufacturing costs that people are prepared to pay for those goods, relating to the amount of expenditure of their energy in the form of labour that is then paid to them in the form of wages. The central dynamic in all these synchronous systems is energy. It is energy in the form of calories that is required to keep the workers alive that create the goods. It is energy that is required to mine, refine and create the goods. Its is energy in the form of labour rewarded with wages that allows consumers to buy those goods. The value of Capital is therefore represented by the amount of energy it may purchase.


If at any time the energy costs at any stage of the process equate to more than the price the goods could be sold for, or what the public would be willing to pay, then the Energy In / Profit Out Ratio that is the central dynamic of Consumerism would dictate that those goods would not be made. In other words the entire economic system is based on an energy transfer process and as soon as the energy costs involved in the creation of commodities outstrips profit then those commodities are not produced. The era where Humanity saw value in gold or silver etc is almost over. The global and national currency of the future will be energy. Without energy there can be no increase in social complexity.

Dependence on energy for other nations is the antithesis of an independent nation. No nation can be called independent when it depends on other nations to keep its lights on or to fill the diesel tanks of its tanks and jets that defend the nation itself. A free nation is only ever a nation with an energy surplus. Man will trade energy in the future as he trades in gold and silver today. The primitive economic systems of the past must give way to the creation of a new energy based economic system. The value of a currency is not based on its gold reserves or its GDP it is simply its energy status. The GDP of an advanced nation is not related to its wealth as defined by its cash or credit or gold reserves, the sole indicator of a developed nation is the Energy Production Index.

The EPI is related to the amount of energy a nation produces by itself and for its own needs. Any nation that creates for itself a surplus of energy is then a nation with a positive MEPI figure if it has a mixed energy economy whilst a nation which produces all its own energy needs via a renewable energy system would be classified with an REPI figure. For instance a nation that is not dependent on any imports of energy and that creates and uses all the energy it produces for its own industrial and social needs from a variety of sources would be represented as being at ( 0 ) MEPI with a mixed energy base.

A nation that imports energy to sustain its own internal industrial and social needs would be represented as a nation with a ( - ) MEPI.

If the nation imported in a third of its total energy then that figure would ( - 33 ) EPI.

A nation that produces the equivalent of a third more energy than it requires solely from internal renewable energy systems would be represented on the chart as ( + 33 ) REPI.

A nation with a large REPI would be a nation that has the maximum positive rating for national security and energy security issues and as such would become a major source of inward international investment due to the social and economic stability that such a nation offers.

The exploitation of the right of banks to issue credit and cash means money has no real value anymore. The petro-dollar recycling system is the only thing preventing the total collapse of the global economy. When the oil runs out them the petro-dollar recycling system will collapse. The importance of the petro-dollar recycling system is demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq which was commenced after Saddam Hussein moved his sale of oil out of dollars and into Euro's. (1) (3) The announcement that Iran is intending to do the same and create its own is as much a motivation for the Americans to remove the regime from power as their intent to build nuclear weapons. (2)

At the moment the availability of cheap oil is the basis of the global economy. But a rise in the price of oil would devastate the global economy.

Take for instance China. China at the moment produces the majority of goods the world wants. This is because cheap oil and cheap labour means those goods can be produced cheaply in China. As a result national manufacturing and industry have been decimated in the UK. But this manufacturing boom in China is based on cheap oil making the production of such goods profitable. If oil suddenly rose to $150 a barrel then Chinas manufacturing boom would end and nations would once again have to build from scratch their own industrial and manufacturing bases to satisfy national needs and demands. If those nations were totally dependent on imported oil or gas to supply their social needs then their would be total chaos. Within just a single 24 hour period after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq the result of the collapse of the electricity system created social chaos that is still affecting the nation now.

Regardless of the amount of gold in the national reserve or the amount of printed banknotes in circulation then this would make no difference. Gold is not energy. There is not much use for gold other than it looking nice. When the value of gold, its link to energy, is severed then gold is worth nothing. You cant eat it and you cant keep the lights on with it.

In fact the only value of gold relates to the amount of man power required and effort in the form of energy and money spent to find it and extract it. Gold is not a rare element in nature, in fact it is present in sea water and only the amount of energy (in the form of capital invested in machinery and manpower and the amount of actual energy required to run the machines and pay wages) required to extract it prevents it from being a metal with almost no scarcity value.

http://www.goldfever.com/gold_sea.htm

Those nations with the last of the oil will keep it for themselves in order to keep their own people under control. They will use their oil to build their own national manufacturing bases and supply national demands. Autarchic systems will replace globalism and those oil dependent nations will be hostages of whatever those oil producing nations want. If they demand two hundred dollars a barrel for oil we will have to pay it. If we don't we will be forced to go back into the middle ages and chop down trees to cook our food and warm our houses.

The nations of the world that had then put in place the renewable energy infrastructure to achieve a positive EPI figure then would become the manufacturing powerhouses of the planet.

The BNP should begin to consider creating a national renewable energy network and become a net REPI energy exporting nation with an atomic energy back up system (which I have previously written about called the Alpha Net). This means we would be both a REPI nation with the addition of an MEPI back up energy system encompassing nuclear power, coal mining, deep sea mining and geo-thermal energy production systems. This would place us at the forefront of the developed nations of the world.

Within a ten year period we should aim to build a brand new technological and industrial base capable of creating an integrated energy and transport system based on renewable energies. The new renewable technologies we would then create during this period would then be licensed and sold to the rest of the world. This would be our equivalent of the space race.

Marxist and Capitalist economists do not see the world as closed system with a finite amount of oil and energy and resources available to be used for social complexity. They both think that the free market is not bound by the laws of physics. Both believe that just because demand exists then the market will always be able to guarantee supply. This is fantasy at its most dangerous.

Peak Oil is about to demolish this false consciousness.


(1) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

(2) http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

(3) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html