Worker Lions Led By Trade Union Donkeys

The biggest mistake the workers at the Lindsey oil refinery ever did was allow representatives of the labour supporting trades unions to represent them in the strikes over foreign workers.

The fact that the workers allowed themselves to be sold out so cheaply for a handful of promised jobs that will never appear, and that the system that allows foreign workers to take those jobs has not been banned, means they will be screwed over.

Yet again the trades unions have done their masters work.

The Labour government has used the unions to pull the lions teeth of the strike and consign it to a toothless mewl.

The labour government have won everything they wanted from this strike.

The workers have been given a few false promises and surrendered to the union representatives in the pockets of the Labour Party.

We all remember the fuel protests a few years ago - when they surrendered to the promises of the government what happened - fuel prices continued to rise and rise.

The actions of the strikers to accept a few token local jobs, and to ignore completely the fact that the laws that allow foreign workers to be dumped in the UK are still in action, means they have accomplished nothing.

Nothing at all.

The historic opportunity to force the government to back down on the dumping of foreign workers in the UK has been lost - instead the workers were thrown a few scraps from the bosses and backed down because their union reps told them too.

The trades unions are the lackeys of the Labour party, and the only people who will be cheering this pathetic 'deal' are the government, the corrupt trades union bosses and the foreign corporations that will continue to bring in cheap foreign labour.

By allowing the issue to denegerate to a local deal the union representatives have merely proved that they are not interested in British workers as a collective, but that they only care about saving the governments face.

The workers who voted for this idiotic deal will face total betrayal.

They stood for the principal of British Jobs For British Workers, not local jobs for local workers.

By adopting a local 'I'm alright jack' attitude all they have done is saved the government and the unions whilst ensuring that other British workers will continue
to be screwed over as more companies bring in cheap foreign workers under these laws.

By voting for this local deal they have abandoned completely the principled stand that they said they were taking, which was to ensure British jobs for British workers.

A pathetic 109 promised jobs in one refinery is a total farce of a deal.

It is embarrasing to watch the workers being led like cattle by their Judas Goat trade union representatives back into the slaughterhouse.

Soon the sackings will begin of those that organised the strikes.

One by one they will lose their jobs as a result of 'shrinkage', 'layoff's, 'lack of work' etc etc that are the myriad ways the management use to cull the dissidents from their workforces.

The union will then just allow it to happen as their hands are tied by laws enacted by the Tories and Labour governments that curtail workers rights to strike and protest.

Those other workers elsewhere will now be offered similar deals and no doubt their trade union representatives will urge them to go back to work.

If they do they betray not just themselves but all British workers.

The strikers at Lindey refinery will rue the day they sold themselves out so cheaply to the unions and the government for a handful of jobs.

The British workers who still believe what the trades unions tell them and who believe in government promises or the promises of the bosses are totally self deluded.

They have been abandoned generation after generation by the Labour Party and the trades unions, and yet they still parrot the same old leftist propaganda that they have been taught too to parrot by the very same people that betrayed them.

The historic moment when the British worker could save themselves has not been lost.

The decision of Lindsy oil refinery workers who were lied too by their trade union representatives and urged to accept this deal, has to be rebuffed at other sites.

How much dignity is left for all British workers when a handful of promised new jobs limited to just one area is enough for the entire principle of British Jobs For British Workers to be abandoned.

Government Media BBC Tries to Break Strikes

A very interesting article in the Guardian about how the BBC were telling lies on the news last night when they said that a deal had been reached with the unions over the ending of the strikes.

When the BBC seeks to engineer society and change peoples perceptions in order to influence behaviour - then that is brainwashing and propaganda and not the actions of a legitimate and impartial organisation.

The BBC is the mouthpeice of political correctness and is in the pocket of the government - who pays the piper calls the tune.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/04/strikes-unions

A union representing workers at the Lindsey oil refinery currently on strike over the employment of foreign staff, has rejected a deal proposed in talks with the owner, Total.

Officials from Unite told demonstrators at the north Lincolnshire site that there was no truth to rumours that a deal had been struck last night under which half the jobs would go to British workers.

They described such talk as "lies and rumours" designed to get the protesters back to work.

"This news is as big a surprise to us as it is to yourselves," Phil Whitehurst, of Unite, told the crowd. "When we left the meeting yesterday, the deal that you heard on the television this morning was not in place whatsoever."

Keith Gibson, another union official, told protesters they had rejected an Acas deal put forward last night.


At the same time as the BBC is lieing to the public, the Times editor Mary Riddel in an article here tells us how xenophobic we are to for not enjoying having polish nannies, a latvian driver and cheap builders for her mansion in Lincolnshire as she does.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/maryriddell/4516854/British-jobs-for-British-workers-is-the-cry-of-our-worst-instincts.html

With her usual middle class drive by sneer and smear, the stuck up tart tells us of her journey by plane in first class from Switzerland and her trip to Harrods and then lectures us how we are all 'xenophobic' for wanting to put the interests of British workers before her having cheap domestic staff from foreign nations.

Twat.

The issue of the BBC trying to smear the strikers as racist is also covered in another article here in The Guardian ;


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/03/race-bbc

Why is the BBC obsessed with making working-class people seem racist?

Watching BBC news bulletins yesterday, it was very easy to believe claims that the current spate of wildcat strikes is inherently motivated by xenophobia. Constant emphasis was placed on objections to "foreign workers" per se, rather than fear of workers' wages being undercut, which would seem to be the real issue.

The 10 o'clock bulletin gave us a good example. A voiceover by the BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, (about 12 mins in) told us: "Beneath the anger, ministers fear, lies straightforward xenophobia." Cut to woolly-hatted worker telling BBC reporter: "These Portugese and Eyeties – we can't work alongside of them." There we are: northern white bloke refusing to work with foreigners. Case closed.

Except, watch Paul Mason's report on Newsnight, featuring the same interview (about 4:30 in):


These Portugese and eyeties – we can't work alongside of them: we're segregated from them. They're coming in in full companies.

Even taking into account the dodginess of the use of "Eyetie" to refer to an Italian person, one has to admit that it would be very difficult to portray the second, full quote as racist or xenophobic. It's a statement addressing basic workplace issues – British workers literally cannot work alongside foreign workers, as they are separated. There really is no excuse for editing and presenting a quote in such a misrepresentative manner, unless one is setting out to prove something – namely, that working-class people are racists.

The BBC does have form on this, unfortunately: last year's White season was almost exclusively concerned with portraying white working-class people as paranoid and racist. This despite the fact – and this really needs to be repeated until it's firmly implanted in every bien pensant liberal's head – that white working-class people are the most likely to have friends of other races and religions, and are most likely to marry and have children with people of other races and religions. Not the behaviour of a resentful army of racists.

The apex of the White season's utter weirdness was a Newsnight interview with the BNP's Nick Griffin, author of Who Are The Mindbenders, a 1997 pamphlet detailing how "the Jews" control the BBC and other media. Griffin was interviewed on his own, and then we were taken in to a panel discussion featuring, among others, Bob Crow and Nick Ferrari (both of whom had obviously refused to share a platform with Griffin, hence the solo interview). Hardly natural bedfellows, Crow and Ferrari took turns lambasting the BBC for its portrayal of working-class people. It was an encouraging sight.

But even after this spectacular dressing down, the practice persists. Why? Is it because of a skewed identity politics at play in BBC newsrooms and commissioning meetings? Or is it because the BBC, like much of the media, is increasingly dominated by middle-class scions who don't actually know many working-class people, and thus breezily project any prejudice or other trait they wish on to them? Either way, it's a sordid state of affairs, and – as shown by the devious editing of last night's 10 o'clock news, a dangerous one, too.

Let The Banks Fail

The solution to this Second Great Depression is simply this ;

1) Lets the banks fail

2) Set up a National Bank Of Britain to buy essential and strategic indutries and companies that fail and have the government run them whilst awarding stocks and shares to the workers to increase worker ownership schemes of their own companies

3) Increase workers wages by raising the minimum wage

4) Lower corporation tax for British businesses that employ British workers in Britain

The only way to recover will be by a consumer led recovery, not funding the banksters.



Let banks fail, says Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz

The Government should allow every distressed bank to go bankrupt and set up a fresh banking system under temporary state control rather than cripple the country by propping up a corrupt edifice, according to Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Davos
Last Updated: 8:29AM GMT 02 Feb 2009

Comments 73 | Comment on this article

Let banks fail, says Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz
Professor Stiglitz, the former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told The Daily Telegraph that Britain should let the banks default on their vast foreign operations and start afresh with new set of healthy banks.

"The UK has been hit hard because the banks took on enormously large liabilities in foreign currencies. Should the British taxpayers have to lower their standard of living for 20 years to pay off mistakes that benefited a small elite?" he said.

"There is an argument for letting the banks go bust. It may cause turmoil but it will be a cheaper way to deal with this in the end. The British Parliament never offered a blanket guarantee for all liabilities and derivative positions of these banks," he said.

Mr Stiglitz said the Government should underwrite all deposits to protect the UK's domestic credit system and safeguard money markets that lubricate lending. It should use the skeletons of the old banks to build a healthier structure.

"The new banks will be more credible once they no longer have these liabilities on their back."

Mr Stiglitz said the City of London would survive the shock of such a default because it would uphold the principle of free market responsibility. "Counter-parties entered into voluntary agreements with the banks and they must accept the consequences," he said.

Such a drastic course of action would be fraught with difficulties and risks, however. It would leave healthy banks in an untenable position since they would have to compete for funds in the markets with state-run entities.

Mr Stiglitz's radical proposal is a "Chapter 11" scheme for households to allow them to bring their debts under control without having to go into bankruptcy. "Families matter just as much as firms. The US government can borrow at 1pc so why can't it lend directly to poor people for mortgages at 4pc. ," he said.

Lets Guess What Country It was !

Odds on it was ............


THE UK !





'Mumbai attacks planned in Europe'
Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:28:56 GMT


A child plays with a luminous ball outside the Taj Mahal hotel. The hotel was reopened after a month in December 20.
Pakistan's national investigative body, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) believes that the Mumbai terror attacks were planned in Europe.

The result of a probe into the attacks show the master plan was developed in a European country, a senior FIA official told Press TV.

The official, who was talking on condition of anonymity, said the Pakistani government of Asif Ali Zardari was still undecided over providing the country with evidence.

Declining to name any state, the official added that the report will be presented through a diplomatic channel to the Indian government in the next two days.

In late November a series of ten coordinated terror attacks rocked India's largest city. At least 170 people, including 22 foreigners, were killed and 300 more were injured.

India blamed Pakistani-based "elements" over the attacks across its financial capital, saying the terror bore the fingerprint of Lashkar-e-Taiba -- a group blamed for previous attacks in India.

India has provided Pakistan with data from satellite phones used by the attackers as well as what it describes as the 'confessions of a sole surviving gunman', who participated in the attacks, to support its claims.

However the Pakistani official said their findings rule out the involvement of any Pakistani group or organizations in the Mumbai attacks.

"The report further disclosed that there were no Pakistani group or organization involved in the attacks, however the government is investigating to make the report more transparent," the official concluded.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani announced on Sunday that Islamabad has completed its probe into the Mumbai attacks and would soon share this with India.

"The (Indian) dossier (on Mumbai) has been investigated and has been forwarded to the Ministry of Justice and after their approval, I will take you into confidence," he told reporters upon returning from the World Economic Forum meeting at Davos.

Albion Awake !

The tipping point is here, the moment when the media elite have realised that they can no longer ignore, contain, deny and seek to control the mass public anger over the issues of mass immigration and the issue of British workers.

The article below from The Sun is not just evidence that the media are finally being forced to tell the truth about what has been happening in this country, because if they keep denying it they lose all integrity with the public, but that the entire System is in crisis.

The system is built upon these four foundations ;

1) The international Oil owning, extraction, refining and supply nations, states and corporations known as The Oil Imperium

2) The Global Banking system built upon the petro-dollar recycling system and Fractional Reserve Banking based on future economic growth based on perpetual cheap oil

3) The international corporate Media

4) Politics

We have already entered, or are about to enter, the age of Peak Oil.

Once Peak Oil begins then the global petro-dollar recyling system collapses, fractional reserve banking collapses, a global depression begins, mass unemployment begins, eco-conflicts and resource wars begin, Energy Imperalism begins to cause wars across Africa and as a result famines break out across the Developed World causing mass immigration into Europe.


The only way to stave off the Peak Oil nightmare is for the Bankers to pour billions into long term renewable energy projects and oil infrastructure investment - both of which are impossible due to the crash in banking loans.

Therefore we are having an economic crash that will ensure the Peak Oil crash is the worst scenario possible.

The Sun article is proof that the media are scared. With the Banking Wing of the System in crisis, Peak Oil about to hit and the political establishment powerless and culpable for actually allowing the financial crisis - then only those parties that represent the interests of the people and the nation can offer the radical change our country needs.

Capitalism has failed.

Liberalism has failed.

Socialism has failed.

ONLY NATIONALISM WILL BE OUR SALVATION.

The media see which way the wind is blowing, and like the rats they are they are trying to jump ship.

They know that Brown is out at the next election and the Fop will be in power.

But thats not what scares them.

It is the election after that which is frightening them - the one where the BNP get elected about ten to twenty new MP's, and which will be the start of the British National Revolution.

They sense the Wicker Man is coming.

The Wicker Man is the growing fury of the people of Britain, it is that spirit of revolution which rests for centuries in the blood of our people before once again erupting into being with all the power and might of an exploding volcano.

It is the long pent up primal anger being released of a people who have had their rights, liberties, identity, communities and and cultures taken from them and in return have become strangers in their own lands.

The Wicker Man is the symbol of the cleaning fires into which we will throw the entire ideological garbage and social detritus of political correctness, the Servile State, the entire race relations industry, the European Union laws and regulations and the entire corrupted political and economic systems that demand the people serve them and not that they serve the people.

The Wicker Man is the archetypal image of a people who have awoken, and its image is firmly rooted in the collective unconscious of our folk.

The ancient Kelts knew that in times of crisis that sacrifices must be made.

The sacrifice that is required for our generation is to abandon the entire economic, political and industrial system that has dominated the 20th century - that of the Oil Imperium.

It is this system that is killing British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is this system that created the economic crisis by allowing bankers to issue credit and cheap mortgages, it is this system that is killing the planet and causing climate change and it is this system that creates a class of super rich oligarchs and poor workers.

This article vindicates everything we have ever said.

It is the wake up call to a generation somatised by consumerism and cheap credit.

A new vision is needed for our nation, and that vision is Albion.


Albion Awake !
















http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/kavanagh/article2195319.ece


Kavanagh
Why foreign worker row will erupt into a headache for GordBy TREVOR KAVANAGH

Published: Today

THE only surprise in the row over Grimsby’s foreign workers is that it took so long to erupt.
When jobs are scarce, why should skilled Brits stand idle while hundreds of Italians are imported.

For years we have been told what we can and cannot do by unaccountable Brussels directives.

Now in hard times, we are no longer prepared to put up with the lunatic attempt to turn the EU into an artificial nation state.

Europe’s overweening power, and the Government’s refusal to act, are turning migrant labour into a toxic new factor in this slump.






“Deputy PM” Peter Mandelson fears unemployment — here and in Europe — could unravel the EU.

Yet Mandy fuelled the blaze by telling strikers if they don’t like Italians taking our jobs, they should go to Italy and take theirs!

He should understand that this clash over foreign workers is just the first puff of smoke from the volcano.

This small island was never going to cope long-term with three million uninvited, sometimes unwelcome and often illegal, guests in seven short years.

Nor, as times get tougher, will we quietly accept the Government’s prediction of ten million more.

The strikes at oil, gas and chemical plants are only the start.

There are plenty more foreign-only deals waiting to explode, not least the £12billion Olympics where thousands of non-UK workers are being hired.


Advertisement

Brits of all backgrounds, including established migrants, have been simmering over immigration for a decade.

They were treated with contempt as Labour recklessly opened the door to countless newcomers.

Yes, the vast majority are decent, law-abiding workers, grateful for our hospitality.

But there is an ugly side to immigration we are not supposed to talk about...

Freeloading on the welfare state, jumping housing queues and mopping up health and welfare provision for which they have paid no tax.

Immigrants feature disproportionately in criminal violence.

Organised gangs from Africa, Albania and Asia run ruthless drug and vice rings. And ministers do absolutely nothing about it.

Labour champions equality but ignores its own natural supporters — hard-working tradesmen priced out by EU rivals.

Labour vigilantly imposes Health & Safety fascism yet turns a blind eye to migrants exploited as slave labour.

Unions hail the minimum wage as their greatest triumph while workers compete with foreign rivals who work all hours for what they see as a king’s ransom.

Labour decided long ago that all immigration is good.

If it raises tax revenue, the more the merrier.

All minorities, even those with no link to this country, take priority over the established population.

Inner cities are colonised by entire communities who live, pray, dress and speak as if they still lived in tribal villages.

Shockingly, there are 300 schools where English is not the first language.

Labour is obsessed with its diversity agenda, yet it sits mute as women in ghettos are kept ignorant, forced into marriage or, in some cases, murdered for refusing.



Row erupts ... Brits demand jobs for Brits
Any attempt to raise matters like this is denounced as “racism”.

Labour effectively silenced Tories with this ugly smear. Now they are being forced on the back foot because the same charges are being levelled from their own side.

Trevor Phillips, black chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has spoken bravely about his party’s mistakes on race.


Threat

Past and present immigration ministers have talked about action, while at the same time waving in 150,000 workers a year.

Dagenham MP Jon Cruddas warns Labour MPs risk a dangerous threat from an increasingly strident BNP.

But it is Birkenhead rebel Frank Field who speaks up for the whole country.

“Stakes could not be higher,” he warns. “The men and women on these picket lines are not just fighting for their jobs, they are asserting their national identity.

“Anger should be directed at this Government.”

Couldn’t put it better myself.

Janet Daley Article

This is a superb article by Janey Daley, and her statement that the plan to remove power from the people and hand it over to oligarchs via the undermining of national sovereignity is of immense importance - coming as it does from someone so close to the very heart of the system itself.

This article is one of the most important political articles of recent years.






http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/4424125/Wildcat-oil-strikes-Europeans-are-finally-waking-up-to-the-demise-of-democracy.html


The peoples of Europe have finally discovered what they signed up to.

I do mean "peoples" (plural) because however much political elites may deceive themselves, the populations of the member states of the EU are culturally, historically and economically separate and distinct. And a significant proportion of them are getting very, very angry.

What the strikers at the Lindsey oil refinery (and their brother supporters in Nottinghamshire and Kent) have discovered is the real meaning of the fine print in those treaties, and the significance of those European court judgments whose interpretation they left to EU obsessives: it is now illegal – illegal – for the government of an EU country to put the needs and concerns of its own population first. It would, for example, be against European law to do what Frank Field has sensibly suggested and reintroduce a system of "work permits" for EU nationals who wished to apply for jobs here.

Meanwhile, demonstrators in Paris and the recalcitrant electorate in Germany are waking up to the consequences of what two generations of European ideologues have thrust upon them: the burden not just of their own economic problems but also the obligation to accept the consequences of their neighbours' debts and failures. Each country is true to its own history in the way it expresses its rage: in France, they take to the streets and throw things at the police, in Germany they threaten the stability of the coalition government, and here, we revive the tradition of wildcat strikes.

But the response from the EU political class is the same to all of these varied manifestations of resistance. Those who protest are being smeared with accusations of foolhardy protectionism or racist nationalism when they are not (not yet, anyway) guilty of either. It is not purblind nationalism, let alone racism, to resent the importation of cheap labour en masse when its conditions of employment (transport and accommodation provided, as seems to be the case at Lindsey) allow it to compete unfairly with indigenous workers. The drafting in of low-wage work gangs has always been seen as unjust: exploitative of the foreign workers, and destructive of the social cohesion of existing communities which, incidentally, is something about which the Tories say they are much exercised. So can the protesters expect their support?

The US had a rule during its great period of immigration in the early years of the last century, that no one could enter the country with a pre-arranged job. This was designed precisely to prevent the unfairness and disruptive effect of the wholesale import of cheap labour. An individual travelling to seek work, prepared to take his chances in fair competition with local workers is one thing: the organised recruitment of people from the poorest regions of the poorest countries in Europe in order to reduce employers' wage costs in the more prosperous ones, is something else altogether.

Nor is it "protectionism" to argue that competition for employment should take place within a context of social responsibility and respect for the fabric of communities. Genuine protectionism is setting up barriers to free trade: this is what Barack Obama is doing when he forbids the importation of foreign materials such as British steel, and urges his countrymen to restrict their purchases of goods not manufactured in the US ("Buy America!") I eagerly await the condemnation of his proposal for US economic isolationism from all those European leaders who were so anxious to see him elected.

Free trade in goods, as opposed to unlimited open borders for transient labour, is absolutely essential to the recovery of the global economy (and for that matter, to the relief of poverty in the developing world). I agree with those who fear that the US under President Obama may be about to do what it did under Franklin Roosevelt, whose protectionism and hard-nosed refusal to make concessions to international needs condemned the world to a depression (followed by a war). But what the British strikers are demanding is not the same at all, and if their complaints are caricatured or defamed, the price in social disorder could be hideous. It is not an exaggeration to say that this could be the moment of justifiable anger that neo-fascist agitators have been waiting to exploit.

The protesters are simply demanding what they thought – what all free people have been taught to think since the 18th-century enlightenment – was their birthright. That is to say, for the basic principle of modern democracy: the understanding between the state and its people that the proper function of a government is to represent the interests of those who elected it. And to be fair to both presidents, Obama and Roosevelt, this assumption is so deeply grounded in the American psyche that it is almost inconceivable for any US administration not to abide by it quite literally.

In the grand abstract terms of the enlightenment, the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the governed, and therefore no government should have the right to hand over its authority to some external body which is not democratically accountable to its own people. So when the framers of the EU arranged for the nations of Europe to do exactly that, they were repudiating the two centuries old political struggle for the rights and liberties of ordinary citizens, of government "of the people, by the people and for the people". It has always been my view that this was a quite conscious decision by the EU founders who, in the wake of two world wars, came to believe that the infamous national crimes of the 20th century could be traced directly to the democratic revolutions of the 18th century, and that the only long-term solution to this was to replace democracy with oligarchy.

But there it is. And here we are, with a generation of European political leaders who almost all accept the terms in which their predecessors gave away the most important principle of that great democratic pact between a free people and its government. While times were good and there was enough prosperity to keep everybody distracted and happy, the loss went almost unnoticed except by a few persistent and despairing critics. Well, not any more. The American government may be committing itself to a policy that is economically unsound and even irresponsible, but its insistence on maintaining the compact with its own voters – on putting their concerns first – will at least ensure that democracy will survive there. I am not at all sure that will be true in Europe.

The Black President Archetype.

Future psychological historians, the explorers of the archetypal 'Innerverse', will one day judge the significance of the media constructed 'Black President Archetype' and its impact upon the contemporary collective unconscious, especially in relation to politics and the election of Barack Obama.

I suggest that decades of Hollywood movies, network TV drama's and media promoted imagery of the Black President Archetype have paved the way for the election of Barack Obama, and that Barack Obama has consciously employed this archetype for his own political promotion - and thereby created an actual archetypal social reality which has the potential to fully create the 'shadow' side of that archetype.

We can suggest an possible archetypal analysis of the significance of the Black President Archetype via its previous and existing cultural forms in the media.

The imagery of a Black President of the United States has been a staple of Hollywood movies for decades. Usually the Black President is seen as a saviour figure.

What is interesting is the context in which those cultural forms of the Black president within movies have been actualised, and they have almost always been associated with some of national disaster or planetary disaster. It appears that the archetypal image of the Black president of the United States is always accompanied by imagery associated with an apocalypse.

This is the shadow side of the archetype.

One cannot have one without the other.

From the film Deep Impact with Morgan Freeman as President Tom Beck, Dennis Haysbert as President David Palmer in 24, Chris Rock, Tommy Lister and James Earl Jones as Douglas Dillman in 'The Man' (1972), the image of the Black President is associated with war and crisis. In most cases the the media archetype of the Black President saves the nation and the world.

The Black President archetype is usually peddled to the masses as some sort of saviour who can always solve every existential threat to the nation and world.

Therefore in an age of chaos the archetype of the Black President is what becomes active within the collective unconscious. Problem / Reaction / Solution.

This is interesting as this is what is happening right now in the world.

It appears that the media creation of an archetype may in fact assist that archetype in actualising itself.

By creating a cultural imagery associated with a Black President saving the nation in peril, when the nation is in actual peril then that archetype may find fertile ground within the collective unconscious of a nation - and allow individuals and social forces to use that archetype to gain political power.

What is even more interesting is the suggestion that the election of a Black President may in fact be an manifestation of a prefiguration of some catastrophic event in human history.

I suggest that the Black President Archetype prefigures a global existential crisis of some kind.

In the alchemical process each must face the demon Choronzon, the beast who guards the gates within and who is the personal nemesis of all of us. That includes nations as well as indivduals and alchemists.

It may be that Obama represents the 'saviour' image that Americans associate with Choronzon - the figure who stands at the gates of the coming chaos. Obama is a talisman, a fetish, being used by the collective unconscious in order to somehow avert the coming disaster.

But Obama is not the only archetype that walks this world.

The creation of a myriad archetypal figures and images in the media, and in cultural forms all over the world, have unleashed armies of archetypes upon the planet.

Most of these archetypes will never be actualised as a wider social reality, but as society changes then these archetypes awaken and spread, colonising the minds of those they infect.