Friday, 8 April 2011


By Stanley Collymore

Let me from the outset of this article state unequivocally and unashamedly where I’m coming from so there’s no misunderstanding or misrepresentation on the part of anyone, whether naively or maliciously so, of what I’ advocating here. I despise the BBC, those who control and run it and the plethora of subservient, non-thinking, sycophantic and self-serving nerds who work for it. It’s not representative of mainstream let alone multicultural British public opinion; rather its views pander to the sentiments of the rich and powerful elite inside the UK who it obsequiously cosies up to as well as its cohorts of international Zionist, rightwing handlers whose every wish it grovellingly obeys and implements.

The BBC – pejoratively dubbed during the Tony Blair and George W Bush era as the Blair Bush Corporation - is a past master at reinventing and rebranding itself when push comes to shove, when in effect it’s nothing more than a sickeningly, odious and perniciously entrenched propaganda outlet no different from Fox News, lets say, but one that none the less brazenly and malignantly exploits its longevity and official, legislative status as a public broadcasting entity that it has long enjoyed to lyingly, dishonestly and quite disingenuously portray itself as a stalwart beacon of probity and an unyielding purveyor of high moral and stringent objective standards of broadcasting, none of which when realistically, impartially and closely examined does the BBC in the remotest sense either reflect or represent, or would it have the foggiest notion what these values are or how to implement them.

The monstrously minimal, highly selective and extremely biased BBC coverage of Israel’s 2008/09 massacre of well over 1,200 Gazan Palestinians, the vast majority of whom were women, children and the elderly: innocent victims that were further handicapped by being physically immobile and therefore unable to leave their homes and so were butchered d there by the Israelis, and the attendant, obdurate and heartless refusal of the BBC to allow a standard and commonplace in other previous tragedies elsewhere, humanitarian appeal to be broadcast by that organization when even the commercial broadcasting companies had no disinclination to do so, is a case in point as was the situation vis-à-vis its reporting of Israel’s murderous assault on the Mavi Marmara with its horrendous consequences for those peace activists on board seeking to draw the world’s attention to as well as break the longstanding, immoral, internationally illegal land, sea and air blockade of besieged Gaza by this western implanted, racist apartheid state they call Israel.

And quite sickening it was to see the BBC parroting verbatim the briefings of the IDF and giving inordinate airtime in terms of reportage and so-called analysts to just the one point of view – that coming out of Tel Aviv – while cynically conning its viewers into believing that its tame reporters were giving a truly analytical and objective report of events that were exclusively those of the BBC, when in point of fact they were nothing of the kind but were instead masterminded from Israel and done so at the behest of the Israeli authorities.

But whenever the BBC opens its corporate mouth you can rest assured that it always tries to give the impression that it is speaking with the authority and on the behalf of the international community and that somehow this moral authority that it has granted itself is indivisible. But caution over the BBC’s words need to be stringently exercised whenever the term the International Community is invoked by it. For what the BBC really means by the expression the international community is the arrogant and imperialistic Cabal of white-dominated Caucasian states comprising the United States of America, the European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand along with their enfant terrible and Middle Eastern holocaust assassins’ specialists Israel and their small but committed band of likeminded, autocratic cronies; no one else.

And while it’s perfectly true to say that the BBC has never throughout its entire existence lived up to the laudable ideals espoused in its founding charter, it is nevertheless quite an expert at unsavoury conduct as well as being remarkably adept at the vituperative art of black propaganda, something that started very early in the life of the BBC.

A couple of examples I shall highlight here clearly exemplify this. During the First World War the BBC regularly pumped out its black propaganda reports of German soldiers routinely raping and killing Belgian nuns; and almost identical story of bestial atrocities but with different characters and an entirely new location that many years later it stridently and graphically told the world were being systematically carried out in Angola. This time, the BBC authoritatively told the world, the perpetrators were Cuban soldiers and their defenceless, innocent victims were young Angolan women, pubescent girls and even under aged minors of both sexes. Like the First World War BBC story the Angolan one was also a tissue of deliberate lies designed to sow discontent, suspicion and even rage among the local populace and the foreign soldiers in their midst and there specifically to help them overthrow the tyranny of imperialism but a secondary motive and which was just as important as the earlier one was to further the aims of the British imperialist government in London, its western allies, particularly the United Sates and Zionist Israel, by using the BBC, long associated in the minds of its listeners and viewers with broadcasting and is therefore generally but quite erroneously perceived worldwide as an impartial broadcaster, as their mouthpiece. The reason for this misplaced trust is outlined below.

During the First World Ward at the express behest of the British government – for those unaware of this fact the BBC’s World Service is exclusively controlled by and financed through the taxes of the British taxpayer by the British Foreign Office – the latter was very keen to get an isolationist USA actively involved in Europe’s internecine war; a family at war so to speak: Germany’s imperialist one pitted against that of Britain’s, both having a head of state and ruling families biologically and closely related to each other. In the Angolan case that country has large reserves of oil which the west is heavily addicted to, and fearing the domino effect of more and more strategic African countries rising up to wrest their lands and natural resources back from their European colonizers aided in their exploitation of the African continent by the US Empire, and particularly afraid that South Africa the last bastion of white supremacist ideology in Africa would go the same way, South Africa was incited by its western backers to invade Angola which it did, only to have a sound thrashing from the Cuban troops called in by the Angolan president to assist his country, and bearing in mind the history of Europe’s iniquitous trans-Atlantic slave trade in African human cargo was a request readily taken up and executed by Fidel Castro in tandem with the full and enthusiastic support not only of the Cuban people but also the rest of the African Caribbean community in the West Indies and its Diaspora well beyond their Caribbean shores. Little wonder then that the BBC and the rest of the British media along with their western counterparts that carried this reprehensible story wanted so desperately to sow the seeds of discord between the Angola populace and their African Caribbean brothers and liberators.

It was the same kind of black propaganda that William Hague: the Pinocchio of British politics and regrettably British Foreign Secretary employed during the popular Libyan revolutionary uprising of 2011 when he publicly stated, without providing a shred of evidence to corroborate his damming accusation, that Libyan strongman and autocrat Colonel Gaddafi who just minutes earlier the British government and their western allies had wholeheartedly embraced and were gleefully doing business with, but now sensing in which direction the wind of change was blowing in Libya as it had previously and is still ongoing in Tunisia, Egypt and the wider Middle East did a complete volte face and shamelessly claimed that Colonel Gaddafi had fled Libya and was on his way to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. No need to ask why Venezuela let alone analyse boy Hague’s remarks. I use this expression in relation to William Hague because his performances generally and particularly so in his position of Foreign Secretary are classic examples of an incompetent boy thrust into a role which he’s evidently unsuited for, man’s work so to speak, clearly has no idea of what he’s talking about, is lamentably out of his depths, and obviously hasn’t the foggiest notion how to behave in such internationally charged situations, except to resort to type and malevolently create mischief; predictably though the BBC unhesitatingly along with the rest of the western media gave banner headlines to this vituperative story.

Happily it turned out to be a rather futile exercise on the part of the BBC. Angola meanwhile regained its sovereignty; Southwest Africa: an illegally held and controlled fiefdom of apartheid South Africa became sovereign, independent Namibia; and official apartheid in South Africa was confined to the dustbin of history where it rightfully belongs, as the downtrodden people of that country, immensely rich in natural resources and cultural history, finally after many years of hard and sacrificial struggles waged against a diehard, racist and ruthless imperialist regime valiantly secured the right to run their own lives as they see fit; and this too will be the reward of the people of Palestine, the wider Middle East and all of Africa whatever the Neanderthals at the BBC think or say to the contrary. What we’re currently seeing at the BBC therefore is a classic case of the lunatics having taken over and are now running the asylum.

So far as I’m personally concerned the BBC and all those associated with it can go to Hell and the sooner and by whatever means possible that this can most effectively and permanently be accomplished the better I say. For I’m absolutely sure that among the many millions who like me through our compulsory TV licences are legally coerced into paying for the BBC’s wasteful extravagances and iniquitous black propaganda masquerading as objective reporting feel the same way.

Therefore with an intense loathing of the BBC and everything it represents and furthermore with a dedicated ambition to seeing its demise fully realized in the not too distant future it would be foolhardy for anyone to imagine that I watch the BBC for anything positive let alone informative; let me say unequivocally that I don’t. But military experience combined with commonsense have long taught me that in the same way one doesn’t underestimate his or her enemy or completely ignore them for that matter, it would be similarly unwise and even stupid of me were I not to adopt the same watchful position with the BBC. So like the irritant foe that it is I periodically but carefully monitor its actions and output to see what it’s up to. And it was while I was doing so that I happened to come across an airing of one of its programmes under the haughty, self-congratulatory and grossly exaggerated title: The Big Questions, broadcast on Sunday 27 February 2011.

The segment of this broadcast that caught my eye and grabbed my undivided attention because of the heated, conflicting and contradicting remarks that were being made by what was evidently a carefully handpicked studio audience was about the issue of transracial adoption; and I couldn’t help from thinking what a load of froth was being disingenuously generated for the most part from an essentially artificial construct. Didn’t these people know, or were they afraid to say if they did, what any prescient-minded person has long been cognisant of, that the components which combine either consciously or fortuitously to formulate the end product that has given rise to an awakened desire or even a conscience-ridden need for transracial adoption by these belated, chest-beating supplicants stem largely from the wider and deeply entrenched prejudices of their society itself.

The majority of mixed race births in the United Kingdom emanate overwhelmingly from carnal liaisons between black men and white women, with the latter freely engaging in these sexual assignations from the largely prejudicial notions they hold and which are deeply ingrained in the psyches of both genders of the Caucasian race, namely that black men are well hung like serviceable stallions; have an insatiable and non-discriminatory appetite for sex, particularly with white women; are exceedingly good at sexual intercourse and so instinctively provide a far more exciting, adventurous and accommodating prospect as a lover than sexual intercourse normally is or would be expected with the customary white male lover, partner or husband and, therefore, a tremendously satisfying time within the context of a strictly epicurean framework – with the more secretive that this is the greater will be the anticipated turn-on effect and lustful rewards it is widely imagined, since genuine emotion and the usual restrictions that it usually places on a proper relationship is never a part of this exploitative equation – can be had with these black men, and furthermore without the women involved either having to think or in any way rationalize for that matter about the real likelihood of a meaningful relationship ever developing between themselves and these black men with whom they’ve opted to have sex with that would entail marriage to them; planning and having legitimately conceived and produced children with them; let alone embarking on and consolidating a life-time of commitment together with them as would intuitively be the case if they were white.

When it comes to transracial relationships between black women and white men the situation gets even more bizarre, since many of these black women consciously want to breed out the blackness which they feel they’re severely handicapped with by producing light-skinned offspring, and the more light-skinned their children are the more satisfied they feel within themselves; many Nigerians and so-called South African cape coloureds readily fall into this category of virulent self-haters of their black ancestry; and just goes to show how proficient and successful their white colonial masters and mistresses were in brainwashing them.

But a major problem for these women and one which in their haste to genetically erase their black ancestry by copulating with and conceiving children sired by Caucasian males is that their choices are invariably haphazard ones; very much along the lines of any white man will suffice. And there are many only too happy and willing to oblige, firmly of the opinion and bolstered by discredited, allegedly scientific data which purport that black women are biologically different from their white female counterparts, a difference that is prominently demonstrated, this data assert, in the composition of the sexual organs and reproductive systems of these two female species of the human race; marked variations that cause black women, unlike white ones, to have an incessant and insatiable yearning as well as a massive propensity for sexual intercourse, which incredibly as it sounds has in the past not only solidified the racial prejudices of member of the judiciary in western countries, notably the United States of America, but also encouraged many of them in their official capacities as judges to casually rule in cases where the rape victim was a black woman and especially if her rapist was a white man that rape, however irrefutable the evidence presented in court was that it did occur, could not have happened if the victim was a black woman, since because of her purportedly rapacious appetite for sex black women can’t be raped; perverse judicial rulings that routinely allowed white men, particularly in America’s Deep South, to go free and gave the green light to all white men that they had a licence to see and use black women as they wish, even without the consent of the women involved.

And because white men traditionally have no interest generally in black women other than a sexual one this evidently predictable but to those black women whose preferred choices they were as lovers and the fathers of their children, their abandonment by these men and amazingly but seemingly so unexpected to them, usually cause many of these racially confused women to become disillusioned, dejected and desperate; saddled with kids they can’t financially support and whose biological fathers want to have nothing to do with them; and in the circumstances they find themselves and moreover have significantly contributed to are forced to opt for the one choice that’s realistically open to them: the wholesale surrender into the care of the social services, attendant with the needless burden to the taxpayers of having to financially support them, of children who sensibly should never have been born in the first place.

But these aforementioned birth mothers aren’t by any stretch of the imagination the only culprits deserving of censure or even vilification. For into their blameworthy ranks fall the mainly happy-go-lucky mothers of mixed race children who suddenly discover from having given birth to a mixed race child what it’s really like to be on the receiving end of white racism of which having previously lived in a state of denial about its widespread and venomous effect, they now find themselves totally ill-equipped to deal with and wouldn’t know where to start even if they wanted to do something about it, which many of them don’t; since ostracism by their white kith and kin as well as their white peers and appeasing this by any means possible mean much more to these selfish women than the welfare of the mixed raced children who rather thoughtlessly they’ve brought into this world. Correspondingly, a similar criticism should also be reserved for those who just as thoughtlessly or capriciously get pregnant, even doing so with multiple fathers and with all of them having one thing in common: the abject discharge of their parental responsibilities by fecklessly and even callously in some cases dumping their discarded offspring into the proverbial lap of someone else.

If this sounds unsympathetic then it is, but the sentiments expressed are directed specifically at the irresponsibility of the mothers involved as well as that of the putative fathers of their children, not the children themselves who are completely blameless in this whole sordid affair and will be the ones if they don’t manage to successfully escape the disheartening quagmire into which they’re often unceremoniously and sometimes uncaringly dumped, grow up into the dysfunctional individuals that many of them unfortunately become, and for the simple and predictable reasons that either they’ve been unable to achieve positive change unilaterally in their lives, or else couldn’t find anyone who was prepared or willing long-term to help them develop the necessary skills and confidence to fully extirpate themselves from the enduring legacy of debilitating trauma and its associated scars that routinely they were subjected to during what ought really to have been for them an innocent and enchanting chapter of their lives but quite clearly wasn’t.

That said, let’s not carelessly deceive ourselves about what was the actual motivation, masked behind its querulous, purportedly soul-searching and highly sanctimonious posturing, for the BBC’s airing of this edition of The Big Questions programme and whose remit, as is always the case in similar situations and have been on prior occasions with this broadcasting corporation, was to act as a sounding board for the policy makers and peddlers of influence within whatever incumbent British government there is by using its domestic and overseas audiences, when the latter is perceived as appropriate and therefore considered to be useful, as convenient but unsuspecting guinea pigs to promote this process and so secure for its propagators their joint agenda, whose core elements in the case of this transracial adoption segment of The Big Questions were a volatile mix of sex, race and public finances.

Throughout Britain and particularly in England there has always been a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards sex, this despite the fact that the UK has the unenviable distinction of being home to the largest number of teenage and underage pregnancies in Europe; where according to official statistics well over 33% of married women and females in established relationships regularly cuckold their husbands or live-in partners, conceive, produce and then offload onto these unsuspecting men offspring not sired by them and of which they’re blissfully ignorant of this fact and often remain so throughout their entire lives; where too until the 1970s there were a number of out of the way, austere, official residential institutions that were euphemistically referred to as homes for unmarried mothers where fecund females of all ages and backgrounds who’d either been careless or were simply unfortunate in their sexual relationships and became unintentionally pregnant in an era when abortions were prohibited, strictly proscribed, was a criminal act, and had severe legal penalties attached to them and were therefore largely and understandably avoided – unless that is the females concerned were from well-connected families, were prepared to take the risks involved and had the means to finance their secret, illegal terminations by unprincipled doctors – could anonymously go to, stay for the duration of their pregnancies and until they had given birth to their babies whose fate in the intervening period would be decided upon, while obviating for themselves in the process the corrosive stigmatization and vituperative censure that was sure to come from within their own families and the wider community alike to which they belonged if word of their condition ever got out, and even worse still, invariably and often forcibly obliged to move away from the area where they lived as a result of being kicked out of the family home for bring shame upon themselves but particularly their families and close friends through having conceived a child without the benefits, respectability and security of marriage.

But harsh as these conditions undoubtedly were and seemingly more so when looked at in the context of contemporary 21st Britain where tens of thousands of abortions regularly take place quite legally each year and the vast majority of British children are now born out of wedlock, what happened to these 20th Century women was none the less child’s play when set against the officially sanctioned and lawfully enforced humiliation, complete negation of all standards of human decency, as well as the sickeningly perverse abrogation both in the legal and ethical sense of the human rights of another group of women whose only crime, but a significant one even so in the eyes of the authorities at the time, was to fall in love with and have children by the men of their choice.

These were white women who against the odds had formed meaningful relationships with black men, had married them and consciously had children with them only to find themselves not only ostracised by the white communities of which they were a part, but also had their lives arbitrarily and cruelly subjected to gross, intolerable and unwarranted interferences from the social services armed with the fig leaf of legal authorization to do so, on the rather ludicrous, really unsustainable but none the less implemented basis that such uncommon and unnatural relationships constituted a significant threat to general public order, were highly offensive to the sensibilities of decent members of the community where these women lived, and were themselves inimical to the cohesion as well as the moral fabric befitting a civilized society in general and the merited expectations of the communities that these women had banished themselves from by their immodest and unacceptable conduct.
Therefore, in the best interests of all concerned these women who by their deliberate choices to have black men as their spouses weren’t just lascivious, with all the lewd, immoral and taboo connotations that that state of affairs vividly conjures up, but were quite mentally unsound as well, it was argued, should have their children permanently taken away from them and placed in care for their own good, with the women themselves, under the stringent and specifically enshrined provisions of the Mental Health Care Act legislated by parliament to compulsorily ensure the safety of potential as well as actual mentally sick patients from being a danger to themselves and others, incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals.

And this was the customary bureaucratic outcome, with perfectly sane and sensible women, who were also competent wives and mothers, compulsorily locked up under draconian but evidently dishonest pretexts and for decades in quite forbidding mental institutions with no guarantees of release, simply to remove them from sight; save the blushes of the irredeemable and paranoid racists that put them there; and, importantly, send a powerful, stern and deterrent message to other white women who romantically might have wanted to emulate these women not to do so. A heavy price to pay one could rationally argue for falling in love and devotedly marrying the person who you most want to share the rest of your life with. Extraordinary but not surprising given the racist views that these self-appointed guardians of probity who were also the stalwart supporters of white imperialist sentiments, particularly against black people and anyone or anything remotely associated with them, staunchly upheld.

Black men they firmly believed were a blight on British society, diluting and even threatening to eradicate their fanciful notions of a pristine Anglo-Saxon Britain and heritage – the same kind of unthinking, simplistic twaddle that some 70 years on one still hears from reactionary, racist, xenophobic, paranoid, poorly educated, ill-informed and deeply confused about all things genuinely historical entities such as the English Defence League (EDL); the British National Party (BNP); the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and others who enthusiastically share their revisionist views of Europe and the world at large generally and Britain in particular while simultaneously being ardent supporters of the absolute and sole right of whites to gratuitously exercise their exploitative, self-interested and repressive hegemony unchallenged globally over everyone and anything that mattered.

As a result, black and especially mixed race children were seen, as unpardonably they still are, as the thin edge of a much large the wedge against this happening; the latter, it was generally believed, inheriting the very worst characteristics of both their black and white parents and, as such, their proliferation had to be actively prevented at all costs, while in the case of those that already existed the consensus among these importunate racists was that no effort should be spared to rigorously remove from their cultural psyche every trace of their blackness.

So ingrained was this virulent hatred and suspicion of Blacks and what was perceived as their enduring and pervasive threat to the continued preservation of Caucasian purity, whatever that was, that when thousands of them came to Britain during the Second World War as part of the United States’ armed forces, conflating on their arrival Jim Crow prejudices and a deep-seated segregationist mindset with comparable home-grown British racism, it wasn’t hard to envisage with so many black men around in communities that had seen very few or none of them before and with the immense potential for mutual fraternizing between them and local white women, just what would happen.
And it did, to the complete chagrin of the US military top brass overseeing a legally segregated military and willing to overly pander to the racist sensibilities of its conscripted, Deep South recruits and lynch mobs aficionados on the one hand and the local, basically self-appointed pillars of white, British society on the other; each side, with the non-consulted and in the main volunteer contingents of black servicemen and their white sweethearts sandwiched in between, resolutely determined at all costs to rigidly maintain the accepted status quo, which was done in the most reprehensible manner that one could possibly imagine bearing in mind the full circumstances that gave rise to this piece of iniquitous perfidy, and identical in many ways to the situation of those white women who were sickeningly and unconscionably incarcerated in mental hospitals; collaborative actions unambiguously and wilfully embarked on as the means of a hard-nosed and efficient deterrent to others.

And what an odious piece of work it was too: this designated deterrent that these sick, vitiated and entrenched racist minds behind it came up with and readily implemented. For with a premeditated disdain for natural justice and the rule of law – Does it remind you of anything? 21st Century Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, Abu Grahib, extraordinary rendition, kidnapping, CIA torture gulags in Eastern Europe and the proposed military tribunals slated for Guantanamo bay detainees to name just a few examples of the excesses of western, imperialist bullying tactics designed to achieve their own self-centred and egoistic ends, along with what’s happening nowadays in the name of combating so-called global terrorism of which they are the chief perpetrators, nothing more in effect than a mirror image of what transpired in the past when transracial fraternization was the bête noire then – the US military high command in the UK in collaborative complicity with their highly cooperative British military counterparts, high ranking officials in the British War Office (now the Ministry of Defence, relevantly involved senior British government ministers up to and including cabinet level, and with the British judiciary and law courts Pontius Pilate style wilfully standing aside watching proceeding unfold as they dishonestly pretended that none of what was illegally happening had anything to do with them, ordered the systematic, arbitrary and immediate arrest on politically motivated, trumped up rape charges of several UK based, black US servicemen either known to be openly doing so or suspected of secretly having regular, consensual sexual relationships with local white women, promptly followed by hastily convened and perfunctorily executed military courts martial held behind closed doors and that these opportune black suspects were routinely and inhumanely subjected to, since guilty verdicts relative to their alleged crimes had already been decided upon before these kangaroo courts were even assembled.

Procedures that effectively made a total mockery as well as a complete ass of the law as it stood on a number of worrying fronts, chief among them the not insignificant matter of British sovereign independence. Racist Jim Crow laws and deep-rooted segregationalist attitudes in the USA might have coalesced across the strata of administrative and judicial processes in that country to produce a codified system of crooked judicial norms, patently unethical though these were, that conscionably allowed American whites in questionable trials and other quasi-judicial fora clearly lacking in probity to judicially lynch black US male citizens or residents for raping white women there, regardless of how compelling or otherwise the evidence presented by the prosecutor’s office in such courts actually was.

However, the charge of rape that was levelled dishonestly against these black, US servicemen stemmed from alleged crimes carried out it was unanimously agreed by all concerned in this vicious witch hunt within Britain, and even though rape is rightly and morally considered in British law to be a serious crime and deserving of severe legal retribution to anyone who is genuinely guilty of perpetrating it, it nevertheless doesn’t and has never carried the ultimate sanction of the death penalty, which these American commanders quite selectively and with the full collaboration of the British authorities were given the green light to criminally effect against these black US servicemen; this despite the fact that there are many documented cases of white US servicemen of all ranks who both during and post World War Two have raped and even killed, in order to either cover up or deflect suspicions away from them of their heinous crimes, local female civilians in the countries their country invaded and subsequently occupied from Europe to Okinawa in Japan and Vietnam to Iraq, but who were never brought to book for their offences.

A stark irony that could not have been lost on the family members now wrongly compelled to carry the onus and scathing opprobrium associated with the memories of their departed and loved ones, nor for that matter the close friends and especially the fellow non-white volunteers in the US military of these massacred black servicemen. For in like manner as their patriotic, honourable, erstwhile friends and colleagues who were callously and eagerly sacrificed on the altar of racist expediency had been, there they were too on a foreign continent thousands of miles away from their American homeland actively involved in a European war they didn’t start and in effect had nothing to do with them, but in which they were none the less fighting, risking and even paying in terms of their lives the ultimate sacrifice to permanently safeguard, so the prosecutors of this war were deafeningly and insistently telling them, just as they were earnestly exhorting them to believe that what they were doing was absolutely indispensible to preserving the fundamental and inalienable human rights, now seriously under threat from dictatorial and undemocratic forces, of others who were complete strangers to themselves and furthermore also belonged to a different race from theirs, while at the same time such rights were systematically and brutally being denied to them and their families by the same race on whose behalf they were being asked to fight, shed their blood and possibly even die, with this rather bizarre situation they were being subjected to not only occurring in the United States of America and its armed forces to which they belonged but also in Britain it seemed; and simply because they were black.

With the war finally over and black servicemen in all branches of the armed forces in which they served having admirably distinguished themselves in the theatre of war: from those who helped to liberate Auschwitz and Dachau among other well-established enclaves of human repression, degradation and death to the highly successful, combative and daringly heroic exploits of the Tuskegee Airmen – the segregated, all-black US Air Force squadron feared and revered in equal measure at the same time by their adversarial, German Luftwaffe pilots, and the only Allied air squadron throughout the whole of the Second World War not to lose a single aircraft, this despite being sent into combat operations from which white pilots were deliberately withheld from engaging in because their air force commanders and/or military strategists considered these operations to be too dangerous for them while black lives were seen as far more expendable – it wasn’t until the presidency of Bill Clinton many decades later by which time conscience-ridden stories in relation to the true facts and circumstances surrounding the war time accusations, convictions and executions of black US servicemen for raping white British women having surfaced and were now widely circulated, that these men in the form of a presidential pardon and national apology were belatedly but finally and deservedly given official recognition of their innocence along with the justice and dignity which were savagely and racially denied them during their life time.

So how did this abuse of power and judicial probity happen in the first place, and more to the point why was it allowed to? First one must understand the complexity of the white racist mind and secondly the clan instinct that imbues most whites who when it suits their selfish ends don’t mind in the least tearing each other apart and will even happily recruit non-whites to assist them in this process and the endeavour to achieve their personal objectives; but it’s also worth remembering that even when such whites are at their most vulnerable it would be quite delusionary on the part of any non-white person, and particularly one who is black to assume let alone believe that this convenient and self-centred relationship they’ve embarked on for whatever reason either makes him or her an equal in the eyes, collectively or individually, of the whites concerned to themselves, or even on this same premise places them on an equal footing with their mutual white adversaries; it plainly doesn’t.

The United States and UK may have wanted for geo-political, imperialist and even ideological reasons to punish Germany for its expansionist intent and to clip its wings in the process of doing so, but by no stretch of the imagination did their governments or populace at large consider for a solitary moment that their black servicemen and women were racially, morally, culturally or intellectually the equals of let alone superior to the white holocaust monsters of Germany, its European allies or their respective collaborators and sympathizers who, to put it mildly, were widespread and deeply embedded across the entire length and breadth of Europe.

Or for that matter émigrés to the United States from what Ronald Reagan once dubbed The Evil Empire; one of whose number has gained national US notoriety and plaudits alike for her virulent and implacable anti-black sentiments, much of which she regularly directs at Barack Obama for having had the audacity and temerity to run for the US presidency and actually win that contest; since this white Russian passionately believes that non black or non-white person for that matter should ever have been allowed to become President of the United States of America. The remarkable thing is that while this woman is allowed to continue living in the US and spout her venomous hatred at Blacks, had the Soviet Union not backed down and the US had gone to war with her country over the Cuban Missile Crisis, many Blacks both within and outside the United States: the latter largely because they were citizens or colonial subjects of NATO countries, would have found themselves fighting in the defence of the United States.

Yet unlike this woman and her white communist ilk, including the several Russian spies who’d lived comfortably and unmolested in the USA for many years until their recent expulsion from that country, those Blacks and other non-whites referred to above and whose origins are from outside the US, and who would have shown no such disloyalty to the United States as these Russians undoubtedly have and only want to be given the opportunity to improve their lives and those of their families, are routinely denied visas to live and work there. Who says skin colour and race don’t matter? And the bottom line in the thinking of western administrators and lawmakers is: If you’re black stand back; but if you’re white then you’re all right!

So why didn’t the white women involved with these black men do something to help them? Well, the US military and British authorities cleverly saw to it that they didn’t. Using the well tried and tested carrot and stick approach they enthusiastically embarked on a programme of coercing hearts and influencing minds, proffering on the one hand an exculpatory escape route with its seemingly generous but nevertheless sinisterly implied conditional offer of anonymity that would shield these women from widespread criticism, inevitable public ostracism, divorce where marriage was involved and the likely loss of any children they had versus on the other hand unrestrained and even exaggeratedly amplified disclosures of their sexual liaisons and propensities in that direction attendant with all the conceivable unpleasant consequences for themselves socially, financially and even their psychological state of health.

Pressed inexorably in the circumstances in which they now found themselves between a rock and a hard place few of these women offered any resistance to this obvious blackmail which they were being subjected to, and the minority who did were quickly marginalized with their evidence refuting the allegations against the black men they were involved with deemed by the kangaroo courts martial set up to try these men they’d been associated with as inadmissible, on the spurious grounds that these women weren’t credible witnesses, a situation that was quickly augmented by officially sanctioned, personal and defamatory attacks made against them with the explicit purpose of completely discrediting them and anything they had to say and, for good measure, irredeemably sullying in the process their good name and characters in the eyes of the public – the age-old ploy of character assassination in other words. And it worked perfectly and was most effective not only in terms of minimizing what these neutered women had to say but also in completely shutting up the other women involved, and who were only too glad not to have been placed in the line of fire themselves, being particularly and additionally grateful they were still accepted as part of that all important white fold, an important endorsement that meant everything to them.

Meanwhile, the years have rolled inexorably on and mankind has witnessed the emergence of a new century, but even so the white colonial and imperialist mindset that so bedevilled the last century and in preceding ones saw the brutal creation of the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to mention just a few examples of this pervasive and ruthlessly ongoing colonialism with its attendant genocidal tendencies and practices that collaboratively among whites wiped out or else severely decimated indigenous peoples around the world, still persist in the DNA of the so-called western world and isn’t about to dissolve any time soon, regardless of the conciliatory noises that this entity inaccurately referred to as the west, since neither Australia nor New Zealand can logically be said to be western hemispheric countries, makes or the number of flamboyant cosmetic changes and grandstanding it embarks on; not least because the main objectives that the west constantly has in mind in spite of its dishonest pronouncements to the contrary and its disingenuous advocacy of democratic norms globally are the exclusive hegemony over the rest of the world concomitant with the theft and absolute control for its own selfish ends of the natural resources and cultural wealth of the people who there and whose ownership isn’t and never was in doubt.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron have all announced with unrestrained enthusiasm and an unconcealed amount of satisfaction the death of multiculturalism in Europe generally and their respective countries in particular; and they are perfectly right, multiculturalism is in effect dead and has been for some considerable time. But what these 21st Century arch-imperialists and Zionists have either stupidly or conveniently omitted to mention in their racist euphoria regarding this matter is the simple and obvious fact that multiculturalism never actually lived in either their specific countries or Europe for that matter and for the simple reason that it came into their particular world stillborn, and even if it hadn’t done so any realistic chance of it being able to survive would have been slim at best and almost certainly have been snuffed out by these 21st Century Adolf Hitlers, Benito Mussolinis and Joseph Stalins fully conscious of their countries’ long, squalid and notorious histories of committing and actively supporting genocide and mass murder globally as well as at home, and crucially for these aficionados of racism, Nazism and Fascism getting away with it. So why not have a go at it themselves?

The rulers and general populace of colonialist, imperialistic European countries, which lets not beat around the bush comprised ever state on the European continent, did not believe in, had never accepted, promoted or would they ever have introduced or endorsed from any source the concept of integration let alone that of multiculturalism: not in Africa, the Americas, Asia or the Antipodes, since they always saw their job as one of vanquishing, subjugating, colonizing, and expropriating the wealth and natural resources of whatever lands they dominated along with establishing and enforcing their will in every possible way on the local people that dwelt there; so why change the habit of a lifetime and out of the blue and inexplicably, particularly when the same mindset persists as is evidently the case with Merkel, Cameron and Sakozy, do a volte face and embrace at home what was never contemplated or done abroad?

The wholly despicable, utterly barbaric and concerted actions of British colonialists and their Caucasian-descended, immigrant, minority population on the South pacific, Asian continent they arrogantly and unilaterally – no need to consult the Natives - renamed Australia, who at first and instinctively so having tried their level best to exterminate, as though they were rabid wild dogs, every living Aborigine they could lay their hands on and managing quite successfully to do so in Tasmania but failing, though not for lack of trying, to repeat that deleterious exploit elsewhere; then as a result quickly and bizarrely changing tack, moving into the realm of fantasy by deluding and actually convincing themselves that perhaps after all that wasn’t necessarily the only route to follow in their attempt to achieve their principal objective: the total eradication of all Aborigines from the face of Australia, because what these colonialists had fortuitously come across and had taken possession of was a land devoid of people other than themselves and being terra nullius it was simply and lawfully an open and shut case of finders’ keepers, and as such the Aborigines who they couldn’t abide or bring themselves to empathize with in any way let alone regard them as fellow human beings were, never mind that in their skewed thinking they were turning logic completely on its head, were in effect the real interlopers – not dissimilar from the Blacks in apartheid South Africa or the Palestinians in Palestine – and therefore and on that basis alone were neither eligible for nor deserving of citizenship, which they weren’t rewarded with anyway in racist, white-dominated and colonial Australia until the start of the 1970s. This ironically in relation to a country that these people had lived in continuously and exclusively for over 18,000 years before any white man or woman knew where it was or had set foot upon it.

So in these given circumstances and understandably worried about their long term prospects as regards their continued possession and questionable ownership of the continent that they’d ruthlessly stolen from their dispossessed but apprehensively for themselves seemingly omnipresent co-inhabitants despite the large number of them they’d already massacred, and fearfully recognizing that their hold on Australia wasn’t only a tenuous one: they just weren’t enough white boots on the ground so to speak, but was also morally indefensible too, these overbearing Aussie colonialists earnestly began to look for alternative but equally loathsome ways to justify and consolidate their problematical legitimacy.

What the federal and state legislatures of Australia then came up with and wholeheartedly embraced was the abandonment of their more aggressive, in your face to speak, we don’t want you savages living among us so we’re going to kill off every last one of you, and substituting it with the more user friendly, in Aussie terms that is, we will instead tacitly recognize your presence in our midst, largely because we’ve no other choice at the present, and for doing so bestow on you the privilege of compulsorily breeding out your blackness, which frankly deeply offends us; and to that end we will forcibly, and without any consultation with you on this matter, take away your children, especially your under age and pubescent girls, from their homes, the communities they lived in and belonged to and especially you their parents and work our white Caucasian magic on them in residential as well as white domestic homes well away from any Aboriginal influences; the policy in other words of forced miscegenation that euphemistically and even dismissively would later be couched in the insolent term: The Lost Generations. In reality, a scandalous and utterly nauseating programme of gender exploitation that in today’s terminology would be classified as grooming, paedophilia or sex trafficking and accordingly totally condemned and harshly dealt with.

But even though this was going on on the other side of the world and thousands of miles away from the shores of Blighty, the British government and people were nevertheless just as much involved in and culpable for what was taking place there as the Aussies themselves. For it was Britain, actively aiding and abetting the discriminatory and racist policies of their antipodean kith and kin to ensure that Australia became and stayed exclusively a white man’s country that ardently assisted this process through years of further and massive emigration from its own territory to that of Australia.

The £10 passage scheme that it instituted, for example, in obsequious obedience to Australia’s racist immigration laws – that rabid right-wingers and others alike are suggesting even in the 21st Century that the UK should emulate – and reflected a similar mindset that pervaded much of British society, and which allowed whites to move lock stock and barrel to Australia but officially barred those who weren’t from doing so, was heavily subsidized from government revenues and obligatorily paid for by the British taxpayer regardless of what colour or ethnicity he or she was, or what their personal views were relative to what their government in collusion with that of Australia was doing in their name. A policy that stank to high heavens, since even before the last shot was fired in World War Two the government of Australia was openly and aggressively in Europe, and most ironically Germany of all places, advertising for, recruiting and fervently encouraging, “White Aryans only!” immigrants to come to Australia.

Notwithstanding the vile and persistent use of the word Aryan with all its Nazi and holocaust associations, in their blandishments to exclusively get whites to move to Australia, this Aussie government insensitivity on top of its endemic racism was occurring against the backdrop that over two million Indians: who relatively speaking were neighbours of Australia and militarily had provided the largest volunteer force in the history of mankind; tens of thousands of black African and Caribbean people similarly in uniform, and not forgetting the role of black United States’ servicemen, all of whom had voluntarily and commendably helped in the liberation of Europe and in the process had also saved the butt of Britain and de facto that of Australia too, were now under the Devil’s Pact formed and bolstered between these two countries ineligible for emigration to Australia while any German Nazi could; and had any of them tried to move to that country would certainly and quite unceremoniously have been declared persona non grata and kicked out.

So for a British government in 2011 to attempt in gung-ho fashion to dishonestly and sanctimoniously try to give the impression that it really cares about transracially conceived children let alone black ones in care is simply a farce, particularly when one considers and carefully examines the pedigree, or more fittingly the infamy of the government concerned.

For this Con-Dem government making these staged-managed and vociferous pronouncements is one that’s made up exclusively of a very privileged elite of imperialistically minded, Zionist-inspired, venal and highly unprincipled, neo-con multi-millionaires insulated and even wilfully detached, some would say, from the real world but who nevertheless posture themselves as the 21st Century proponents of as well as the impassioned standard-bearers and torch carriers for what they see as the glorious age of untrammelled imperialism that they now nostalgically want to recreate, but contrarily and realistically was nothing more than a disreputable and discredited ancestral past that was replete with an assortment of inveterate global warmongers, colonialists, rapists, plunderers, genocide and holocaust purveyors, and less we forget to mention too from among this inexhaustible litany of heinous crimes they routinely perpetrated, exploitative miscegenists as well that quite indifferent to the real wishes, genuine needs and the collective well-being of those they’d either defeated in combat or through the adept utilization of their assorted black arts had consummately hoodwinked in the pursuit of their material gain and now controlled, subjugated in their tens of millions across the Southern Hemisphere, North America and Asia through the systematic repression; brutal theft and retention of their lands and natural resources; and the persistent denial to them of all human dignity strictly reinforced by the ruthless abrogation of their fundamental and inalienable rights to live and conduct their own affairs like ordinary human beings, for which there has never been any remorse shown or convincing apologies given from them, their descendants or their legion of stalwart admirers and fervent supporters like David Cameron, Nick Clegg, William Hague, ex- prime ministers Tony Blair and Maggie Thatcher and many others like them across Europe, the United States of America and the colonialist outposts of Canada, New Zealand and Australia and who quite cognisant of and concomitant with the pervasive influence that such statuses consequentially carry are only too keen to take full advantage of their currently held or previous standings as prominent government figures in their respective countries or as the holders of comparable positions in well-established, internationally recognised organisations to get their own way.

Therefore, only a fool, the totally naïve or those with similar hidden agendas as the Con-Dems and their ilk would pay any notice to or take on board as it’s currently packaged, mischievously disseminated to the media and dishonestly presented as the panacea for seriously tackling and even finally eliminating the diverse problems associated with black and transracial children in care through having them forcibly adopted by white parents on the specious presumption that their skin colour, biological background and cultural heritage don’t or shouldn’t matter when placing them in an all-white, formative upbringing and the only criteria that ought to be taken into account is whether or not they’ll be brought in a loving and caring environment. Nothing wrong with the last assumption were it applied to a perfect world in which racism didn’t exist; but we all know that it does, and in many parts of Britain, mainland Europe and elsewhere it’s endemic, and either feigning or worse still living in a state of denial that this just isn’t so and additionally convincing one’s self there’s no such thing as black culture that these kids should be positively exposed to when those making these alarming and derogatory comments haven’t the least difficulty, in spite of the diverse nature: biologically, historically, geographically and linguistically of Caucasians generally and white Britons in particular, in promptly recognizing and fully understanding what white culture is; and would be the very first to squeamishly have all manner of reservations about black parents, irrespective of how fitting they were, adopting white children and during their formative years raising them in all-black communities and out of the everyday reach of white cultural influences on the same nonsensical pretext that all they needed was love.

The white, western, neo-con media and particularly the right-wing tabloids would have a field day were this to happen; yet reasonable people are unthinkingly expected to accept this belated, fraudulently worthless, pretentious, evidently politically motivated, and specious diktat offered up by the British Con-Dem government, bearing in mind that on the very day David Cameron was rubbishing multiculturalism in Europe, having pronounced it dead in Britain and doing so in the company of Germany’s Angela Merkel no less – who would have thought it, Britain and Germany on the same side at last - the racist, xenophobic English Defence League was with the full awareness of David Cameron publicly banging the identical drum of bigotry and fascism in Luton but unsurprisingly with no word of reprimand from Cameron or his German hostess.
The naysayers of multiculturalism in Britain, as well as in greater Europe, fall roughly into two distinct groups of individuals. The first and evidently the junior partner of these two groups consists of those that have little or absolutely no concrete or relevant knowledge at all about the true histories of their respective countries and who therefore being completely or at the very best are largely ignorant in this regard must overwhelmingly rely on others for their information on this subject matter, and as a result leave themselves wide open to be easy targets for the purposes of propaganda, wilful misrepresentation of established facts, and unfortunately as is frequently the case allow themselves to be deceived through the artful manipulation of themselves by others using a calculated, insidious but sophisticated process of effective indoctrination into believing bogus and fantastical stories about their birth country and even their own origins and assumed place in it that logically are quite senseless, bear no resemblance whatsoever to reality, and sensibly have no rightful place in any reasoned debate or discussion on multiculturalism far less so transracial adoptions and how these ought honestly to be dealt with and even implanted in ways that effect natural justice and create a more cohesive and mutually beneficial society for all concerned, instead of pandering to political expediency and the retention of political power at any cost by a privileged elite; discourses which as they currently stand and with their heavy, inordinate and deliberate focus on the wrong issues belong quite frankly to the realm of concocted fiction, and is a sickeningly pathetic sight to have to observe in the 21st century, particularly against the backdrop that it’s the leaders of these same countries, their legislative bodies, judiciary and media at large, and those elements of the populace referred to earlier that are the ones who are the quickest and loudest to lecture the rest of the world on morality and human rights.

Nevertheless it doesn’t stop the opponents of multiculturalism: primarily the thuggish but highly expendable foot soldiers that belong to this first group of nincompoops I earlier referred to and who strikingly in these regards are not dissimilar to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi brown shirts, but having been well indoctrinated and consequentially are now the highly enthusiastic and implacable foes of multiculturalism and every conceivable concept these people perceive it embodies and which they can insultingly and dishonestly hurl at it, premeditatedly, provocatively and clearly intimidatingly, and with the impassioned zeal characteristic of the classical, fanatical converts they’ve become, take to the streets menacingly brandishing their placards, aggressively shouting their virulent abuse at everyone who doesn’t look like them or others whose support they feel they don’t have, while showing their clear intent to provoke violent confrontation on the flimsiest of excuses with those who courageously challenge their views, or their presence in districts which are either deprived working class areas or have become through financial reasons or de facto solidarity means of mutual physical and or psychological support the nexus of mainly immigrant or immigrant descended communities.

But don’t consider for a single moment that these people are the real authors of the racist, xenophobic and imperialistic, hard line rhetoric that robotically and with such malice comes out of their mouths; far from it! That dubious distinction rightfully and categorically belongs to those ensconced in the second group of multiculturalism antagonists who are not similarly handicapped, historically speaking, as the first group are in relation to the true facts concerning their countries and, moreover and quite frankly, see themselves as having nothing meaningful or inc common, except for their skin colour and maybe the same nationality, with these persons and would be utter horrified and deeply offended were their useful cat’s-paws to think or start acting otherwise, since from birth they were the ones who were religiously schooled in the philosophy and rightness of empire and routinely thereafter had it diligently impressed upon them that by virtue of their birth, class and privileged upbringing they were the hereditary and, therefore, indisputable heirs and putative rulers of everything they surveyed at home and coveted abroad.

Which putting it mildly is an apt summation of the attitudes that currently reflect, as was the case in the past, the foreign and domestic policies of the likes of David Cameron, Nick Clegg, their predecessors Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Margaret Thatcher, as well as those of their continental European colleagues and contemporaries such as Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and even Silvio Berlusconi: the pathetically loathsome figure of a mafia-inclined, old age Casanova and Lothario rolled into one whose numerous sexual and allegedly illegal indiscretions are well documented, Prime Minister of Italy desperately and manipulatively clinging on to political power in that country and whose private and public conduct speak volumes about the man himself, and is typical of the apprehensive and knee-jerk reaction of every cowardly, bullying politician who finds himself or herself in dire straits fomented either by being on the wrong side of enlightened public opinion or from swimming vainly against the immutable currents of history.

It’s not the welfare of mixed race or even black children in Britain that is most likely to cause David Cameron and the rest of his cabinet sleepless nights any more than immigration will, so long as it’s from the right sources; and these are the same attitudes held by other European leaders and many politicians, notably Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy, in relation to their own country. But even so, both issues are convenient hobby horses for these politicians and their leaders to enthusiastically and shamelessly climb onto in their quest to appear strong and resolute, make a name domestically and even internationally for themselves, and significantly garner electoral votes for themselves and their parties.

Sarkozy the French born son of East European refugee immigrants to France has infamously referred to France’s non-white citizens, who he obviously doesn’t identify with, doesn’t like or even see as his fellow citizens, as scum, a word he would never have used to describe whites living in his country regardless of how exemplary or feral they were and whether or not they were citizens of France or merely immigrants living and working there; in the meantime his conveniently off-loaded female foreign minister and Ben Ali bosom pal wanted to send French troops to Tunisia to put down the popular revolution there, views she would not have publicly expressed without the prior knowledge and tacit support, at least, of Sarkozy himself. Hardly a glowing advertisement for the endorsement, promotion and protection of democracy in former colonial territories that France like Britain is always chuntering on about; and while at the same time showing a marked, dismissive disregard for the political rights and social ambitions of the Tunisian people states unambiguously as well that the lives of those killed on the orders of the Ben Ali regime and others who, had it not been for the intervention of unforeseen, fast moving events on the ground that miraculously precluded this French lunacy from taking place, would most certainly have been similarly butchered by these invading French troops sent to Tunisia to prop up the dictatorship there and safeguard lucrative, French business interests in that country in the process, including those of this unlamented, odious, ex-foreign minister and her family, counted for absolutely nothing.

Yet shortly afterwards and in the very week that national opinion polls in France showed that Madame Marine Le Pen: the recently elected leader to succeed her father of France’s ultra far right political party the National Front, had become her country’s hot pinup poster girl and the new darling of the white French electorate making it seemingly inevitable that she would beat the increasingly despised Nicolas Sarkozy in the approaching French presidential elections, chameleon Sarkozy knowing full well that Madame Le Pen wouldn’t be able to count on the millions of votes that were up for grabs among France’s non-white citizens, the vast majority of whom have cultural and familial links with North Africa, and so banking on this cynically, unilaterally and without any prior warning to or consultation with his fellow EU leaders, or anyone else for that matter, decided to give full diplomatic recognition to a ragtag bunch of disparate, self-serving, opportunistic and even treacherous rats hurriedly deserting what they saw as a sinking ship - since most of them until very recently were close allies, supporters and beneficiaries of Colonel Gaddafi and some among them had even served as senior and quite longstanding ministers in his regime – as they actively vied with each other to be the west’s next preferred dictator and like every other similarly western approved despot in the region, past and present, be well positioned to further disadvantage their own people, exploit their country’s wealth mainly for the benefit of their western handlers, while from the spoils that remain lavishly, in relative terms, feather their own nests, those of their families and friends, and forever mindful of their own fixated addiction to power and the immense influence that being in power and tightly holding on to the reins of it can wield, make sure that the military and security services apparatus whose loyalty they’ll need to buy and keep on side with in order to keep them in power as they ingratiatingly do the bidding of their western puppet masters are also well looked after.

Nicolas Sarkozy with far less honour and rectitude than one would realistically expect to find in a dissolute French bordello had willingly prostituted himself and gone for broke, hoping that by this bizarre act of international grandstanding but with the French electorate specifically and exclusively in mind, in recognizing the self-appointed and ludicrously named National Council of Libya, since only one of its assertions, the word Libya, has any credibility to it, he would be able to temporarily curry favour with and even earn himself some much needed Brownie points from those whom he clearly despised, had no problem in gratuitously insulting and belittling in the past but in his frantic hour of need was hoping that they had short memories and this hoped for mental block in conjunction with the rapid reinvention of himself as a committed supporter, friend and resolute defender of the rights, dignity and lives of North African people would see him once more as the elected occupant of the Elysée Palace

A move on Sarkozy’s part, and putting aside his cynically exploitative attempt to get himself elected once more by grabbing the headlines away from Madame Le Penn and the National Front through this transparent, expedient act of his, that is akin to some foreign government seeking to make a name for itself unilaterally and rather self-servingly deciding to recognize one or even several US Native American reservations, which disgracefully are reservoirs of widespread poverty, deprivation, low life expectancy, chronic alcoholism and a blight to the hopes of the vast majority of those dumped there, as the legitimate government of the United States of America; assisting those in eastern Saudi Arabia, notwithstanding the despicable and wholly undemocratic, Middle-Age-era type, utterly tyrannical and absolute monarchist state of affairs in that country to have that part of the country recognized as the lone authority of Saudi Arabia, or in France’s case correspondingly declaring Corsica to be the seat of government for the French Republic; a kind of 21st Century equivalent of Vichy France as it were.

One doesn’t need to conjecture how any of this would go down in Washington DC or any of Europe’s capitals, including Paris, come to that, if something of that sort ever occurred. The answer is fairly obvious from the start. But Sarkozy had no cause to worry in relation to what he did concerning Libya for he knows Libya isn’t in Europe or is it a part of the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia or Israel but crucially in terms of his opportunistic behaviour is very much an African and so-called Third World country, just as he was equally aware that he could get away with what he was about to do and finally did. Nothing really controversial in western eyes, just the wrong timing perhaps on Sarkozy’s part; but that’s all.

But pause for a moment, closely examine and put into its true perspective the western media and government propaganda that relentlessly you have been subjected to for such a long time and which has become rather second nature to your daily lives. So let’s look objectively and together at some of these hypocritical gems, many of them with an African or Middle eastern dimension unsurprisingly, before moving on to the principal one I specifically want to draw your undivided attention to.

Charles Taylor the former Liberian president is currently in The Hague as an involuntary guest of the International Criminal Court (ICC); he’s there for having allegedly helped the rebels in neighbouring Sierra Leone – Liberia has a land border with that country – against their western backed corrupt government that was in power at the time. There was in effect a civil war going on in Sierra Leone and under international law and to preclude the unwarranted interference in the domestic affairs of the country involved no foreign powers or agencies of any sort whether these are private or government sponsored are lawfully permitted to materially help outside the parameters of providing humanitarian assistance either of the two warring parties; this however didn’t stop those in the west from interfering in Sierra Leone’s internal affairs.

The same principle rigidly applies to combat forces: regular or mercenary, being employed and deployed by the ruler or government of any state to specifically crush peaceful demonstrations or protests that are anti-government in nature in that country. Yet while the west and primarily Tony Blair were adamant that Charles Taylor should be arraigned by this political instrument of continued western imperialism and is nothing more than the judicial mouthpiece of the west masquerading as an international criminal court – how many whites or westerners regardless of what heinous crimes they’ve committed have ever been or are ever likely to be brought before this court and consider that in the context of and marked contrast to the disproportionately huge number of black and other Third World countries’ rulers who have? – it was David Cameron a successor in 10 Downing Street of Tony Blair and the rest of the west lead by Robert Gates the Foreign Secretary of the United States hypocritically very mindful of international laws and the morality and integrity of implementing them whenever it suits their self-interested purposes but dismissively with impunity and total immunity from reprimand or having to suffer any penalty for doing so when they selfishly and selectively ignore them, that authorized Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait to launch an invasion – let’s not mince our words here for that’s what it is – of Bahrain on the 14 March 2011 to brutally put down peaceful protests there by thousands of Bahraini citizens who as their equally gutsy counterparts earlier did in Tunisia and Egypt have taken to the streets demanding too that there be real and meaningful democratic changes and a full and positive participation in the running of their country, concomitant with the ouster of a hereditary, autocratic leader who, in every possible way, is totally detached from them and the affairs of their daily lives.

So why this patently two-faced approach by these same western hypocrites as regards Charles Taylor on the one hand and what their favoured dictators and close allies in the Gulf region are doing on the other; or even in the light of their sabre-rattling activities towards Libya?

In Charles Taylor’s next-door neighbour Sierra Leone: a country exceedingly rich, some would say bedevilled with diamonds, the corrupt government there was like all dictatorial ones in the so-called Third World firmly embedded in the deep pocket of the west and looking after not as intuitively should have been the case the general and overriding social, economic, educational and political well-being of its people but instead had as its top priority the financial welfare of the UK government and other western business interests that continued to shore it up and were quite happy to continue doing so as long as their enormous profits kept coming, never mind the sheer brute force that the government of Sierra Leone habitually used to keep the vast majority of its citizens in check, in wretched poverty, and with absolutely no say or allowable remedial measures as to how their country ought democratically to be governed or what should happen to huge wealth that lay there.

It was a calamitous state of affairs that wasn’t focused on and therefore was never redressed, only to intensify as a result and additionally was reinforced by the then colonial government that granted exclusive mining and distribution rights of the mammoth diamond wealth of the country to a small, privileged, elite group of white expatriate Britons, a set of circumstances that continued to exist long after Sierra Leone had nominally attained its independence from Britain; I deliberately use the word nominally because it was principally the UK and the old boys’ network that had exclusively run the former colonial apparatus that still held the purse strings of Sierra Leone’s diamond wealth and continued to dictate events in that country.

And among this much advantaged group of white Britons with the financial destiny of Sierra Leone securely in the grasp of their hands was none other than Tony Blair’s dad, who among other things used this cornucopia of rich pickings that he made out of the wretchedness of the people of Sierra Leone to send boy Tony to the finest and most expensive public schools that money could buy in the UK – although in Tony case it was Scotland - along with supporting his education at prestigious Oxford University; fast tracking him into British national politics and, as they say, the rest is history.

So when the deeply impoverished people of Sierra Leone tired of the unbroken exploitation of themselves by their rulers chiefly for the benefit of white outsiders, and fully aware where their diamond wealth was still heading for as it had always done, rose up in a popular revolt against their utterly corrupt and unrepresentative government, wholly unresponsive to their legitimate requests for proper dialogue and meaningful democratic changes to the way that Sierra Leone was being run, that regime with the full backing of the British government and those like Blair senior who were quite apprehensive that under a truly democratic Sierra Leonean government that put the interests of its people and not those of outsiders first they would not only lose their monopoly to the milch cow they had previously and for such a long period of time thoroughly enjoyed as well as having benefitted hugely from but also and worse still could see themselves actually lose the entire cow itself, firmly impressed upon the regime in Sierra Leone the need, from a western perspective, to crack down hard on the demonstrators which it did, murdering many of them in the process; a situation that not unnaturally and in self-defence caused many Sierra Leoneans to take up arms against their government and was the start of what became a protracted and bloody civil war.

Fatefully for the Sierra Leonean revolutionary forces as well as the vast majority of the local population that supported them this war reached its peak and a defining moment in its outcome during the prime ministership of Tony Blair. No longer boy Tony or the avid student who in transfixed awe and fascinated admiration had metaphorically sat at the feet of his colonialist father as the latter animatedly recited to him his personal imperialistic exploits in conjunction with those he’d seen firsthand, knew of or otherwise wholeheartedly endorsed as constituent parts of the overall panoply of what any country or individual worthy of the name imperialist should embark upon, Tony had himself grown up to become an arch imperialist and in a way that almost certainly would have warmed the cockles of his father’s heart; dangerously too he’d become, and with a huge majority in the House of Commons, the elected Prime Minister of Britain: a country with an exceedingly long history of empire, colonialism and imperialism; that was a nuclear armed state, prominent member of NATO and had a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Both Blairs were now in their element!

Determined, if only for his father’s financial sake, to retard and reverse the substantial gains militarily that the revolutionary forces of Sierra Leone had markedly achieved against their government adversaries and eventually repel them from the battlefield Tony Blair had initially given the green light for this task to an army of British mercenaries renowned for operating in such circumstances and doing their dirty work in Africa with the proviso always in their blood soaked contracts that on delivery of their remit they would be amply rewarded with huge and permanent concessions to that country’s natural resources, and openly run as a listed company in England by a tightly knit Cabal of British public school figures of the old boy’s elite, to secretively enter Sierra Leone and take on the rebels there, which they happily did. However, and unfortunately for them, the revolutionary soldiers proved too much of a match for them and quickly recognizing that they had underestimated the steadfastness of the men and women they were sent to fight and had actually bitten off more than they could chew were hurriedly and ignominiously sent packing with their tails between their legs. Dismayed by this setback but still quite adamant that daddy’s ill-gotten gains and, of course, his own future inheritance must be safeguarded at all costs, Prime Minister Tony Blair evincing an unambiguous insight into his true character and markedly setting out his stall in terms of how his premiership role would evolve not only as it turned out to the complete detriment of the people of Britain but also the rest of the world as well, resorted to his back-up plan; and what a plan it was too!

Publicly declaring but largely for the consumption of his domestic audience that Sierra Leone was a Commonwealth country – something that never concerned or troubled him before and to which he was basically indifferent – and therefore Britain its erstwhile colonial master, words implied but cleverly never used for obvious reasons, had a physical as well as a moral duty to help it with humanitarian assistance - the convenient and old chestnut rolled out again – and additionally what other necessities the Sierra Leonean people were in desperate need of, he as Prime Minister of Great Britain wouldn’t turn his back on them and had decided therefore to immediately provide such help to them. Why that assistance had to be provided in the form of a fleet of British warships off the coast of Sierra Leone armed to the teeth with sophisticated state of the art weaponry including combat attack helicopters and supported by rapid response specialist amphibious and other elite forces like the SAS, Tony Blair never said; but then not a word of his father’s financial connections with Sierra Leone ever dropped from his lips either.

Imperialists don’t only like to win they also get a perverse pleasure from rubbing the noses of their defeated or disempowered adversaries into the dirt, completely and ruthlessly humiliating them and vindictively dehumanizing and destroying them as well whenever they can. The archetypal imperialist that he is Tony Blair embodies all these villainous traits and isn’t at all squeamish about employing them to further his ends. Charles Taylor like any Good Samaritan or friend had gone, in the case of Sierra Leone, to the rescue and assistance of a neighbour and close friend, but that’s not how the Blairs, ever mindful of their diamond wealth, saw it; so Charles Taylor had to be got rid of for putting in grave jeopardy through his altruistic, African brotherly and solidarity assistance to the Sierra Leonean revolutionaries and de facto the Sierra Leone people themselves the future financial prospects of the Blair family whose son just happened to be the Prime Minister of Great Britain with the opportunity, political muscle and an extraordinary penchant for wreaking vengeance however unjust and knowingly so on those he hated, envied or despised.
To that end Charles Taylor the involuntary product of colonialist attitudes and the harsh and scarring imperialistic experiences that he had been routinely and adversely subjected to from childhood and which were instrumental as a consequence in creating the black nationalist he subsequently became was the classic enemy to the likes of Tony Blair and therefore had to be permanently silenced at best but preferably got rid of and out of the way. For besides helping Sierra Leone’s revolutionaries Charles Taylor’s explicit stance as a proud, black nationalist was condemnatorily perceived by Tony Blair as seditious and therefore highly dangerous to western interests and particularly those of the UK in that part of the world; since avowedly black, nationalist sentiments or indeed those of other non-white citizens of so-called Third World states weren’t to be tolerated or encouraged reasoned Prime Minster Tony Blair, for who knows where such unnatural ambitions, from a purely, white Caucasian and European perspective would lead to? That was a risk too far and unquestionably one not worth taking, and as Prime Minister of Great Britain he would make sure that it wasn’t.

White nationalism however in all its forms was a different kettle of fish and perfectly okay; that’s the nature of the beast, how things are and how they should remain, and equating black or other Third World nationalism with it was simply wrong and as a worth precept is wholly unsustainable; and using this rule of thumb analysis it was completely wrong for Charles Taylor or any other African for that matter to want to have a piece of the action let alone be allowed to control Sierra Leone’s diamond industry that belonged to daddy Blair and his pals, and the extraneous fact that they weren’t African, didn’t reside in Sierra Leone and in no way identified with either that country or the rest of Africa itself, come to that, was sheer humbug. And for his audacity and sheer temerity alone in thinking otherwise Charles Taylor had to be severely punished to show him and as an example to others just who was boss and what strain of cockerel ruled the global roost, even if that meant fabricating a number of ludicrous and patently transparent, politically-motivated crimes against him that would in all probability for the rest of his life permanently deprive him of his liberty.

A similar fate that likely also awaits Colonel Gaddafi of Libya as David Cameron, the elected successor to Tony Blair as Prime Minister of Britain and until quite recently a global nonentity and still a political lightweight, but nevertheless a man that is evidently and indecently keen to exhibit his imperialistic credentials to the world, ridiculously trying to make a name for himself in doing so and hopefully establish himself as a force to be reckoned with – precious little hope of that realistically happening I would say – loudly, persistently and rather irritatingly beats the drum of warfare against Libya, another African country.

Meanwhile an entirely different attitude is taken in relation to the west’s favoured dictators and close allies in the Gulf region whose military the west trains, arms, provide with spare parts for their sophisticated weaponry like Cobra helicopter gunships that they use to repress their own people while ensuring that defensively they get all the military hardware they want, so long as it’s not capable of threatening the security of Israel; and on the international front accord them full diplomatic protection and immunity for plethora of wrongdoings they perpetrate.

So while Colonel Gaddafi’s alleged brutal crackdown on his rebels, who in possession of arms can and do fight back, is considered by David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy et al as guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and is therefore worthy of investigation by the ICC, the 15 March 2011 invasion of Bahrain by Saudi, Kuwaiti and UAE military forces to quite viciously and murderously squash evidently peaceful and orderly protests there by Bahraini citizens who are demanding their inalienable political and social rights as human beings, intentionally using live ammunition, helicopter gunships and other war planes to do this, while at the same time callously preventing the seriously injured and dying from getting to hospitals by deliberately attacking ambulances and their crews as well as medical staff at the hospitals using machine guns to intimidate or even kill them, in marked contrast the ferocity of condemnation which was levelled at Colonel Gaddafi and Libya from the west and the United Nations is suddenly but not surprisingly absent in response to the actions of these despotic mass murderers of the Gulf states; but then why waste time condemning something that you’ve secretly authorized and wholeheartedly support? As for the western media the Japanese earthquake and tsunami were a godsend, since it gave them the fraudulent excuse not to cover these murderous events in the Gulf.

Don’t be duped however by the vile chicanery of the west particularly when it comes from the likes of the United States, Britain and France, all of whom have past form. Operation Condor in South America, for example, dreamt up, ruthlessly coordinated and executed by the USA in conjunction with its local, favoured tyrants like Pinochet and with Henry Kissinger: ironically a refugee Jew from Nazi Germany and US Foreign Secretary, an energetic participant – some would logically argue he was much more than that and was actually the brainchild behind the Condor project, that’s specifically why there are several influential voices calling for with the families members and friends supported by many others and demanding justice for the tens of thousands that euphemistically disappeared, wanting to have him arraign on war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the main reason why he rarely travels outside the USA without an official administration advisory warning him of which countries to avoid so as not to get himself arrested; and the principal go-between and roving ambassador at large for the US in South America with his country’s chosen dictators there while both sides did their utmost to seriously hoodwink the people of that continent and the rest of the world that it was a crucial enterprise to stop the spread of communism.

Despite this the United States is not a trustworthy or loyal friend, something that these dictators of the Gulf region and elsewhere that it currently uses as its cats-paws would be well advised to take full cognizance of as they take time too to reflect on the fate of Saddam Hussein and even that of Panama’s former strongman and CIA puppet Manuel Noriega.

Staying in the Middle East though Saddam Hussein was once the darling of the United States of America which cosseted and provoked him to, then armed him to the teeth, providing him with chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction to attack and invade his next door neighbour Iran, which he compliantly did with utterly disastrous consequences following a protracted war for the people of both these countries. However, when Saddam Hussein later outlived his usefulness to the west and particularly the United States and found himself as a result at serious odds with them over their geo-political and economic interests in the region they all swiftly and unhesitatingly turned on him. So the pertinent and imperative questions that this current batch of US led, western backed, Arab dictators should be asking themselves are: where is Saddam Hussein now? Equally germane is, where is Ben Ali: a CIA agent until his ouster as president of Tunisia, or Hosni Mubarak: former poster boy of the United States and very accommodating purveyor of the excesses of western liberalism in his country Egypt and of course, until his similar ouster, another leading US cat’s-paw in the region; and where shall I be in the near or even the relative long-term future if as I’m presently doing I carry on with the sort of conduct and activities that are contrary to the wishes of as well as being deeply harmful to the best interests of my own people, and engaging in them solely for the benefit of the United States and its western partners in crime, when these same parties, as they’re apt to and recurrently do, have no problem whatsoever changing horses midstream or freely availing themselves, as they summarily did in the case of Saddam Hussein and others like him that had become surplus to requirements were abruptly dumped for other more suitable and convenient fish to fry? What will happen to me then? Will I suffer the same fate?

For as sure as night follows day it will happen; for the United States doesn’t have friends but like the empire that it is only strategic interests and will therefore do everything possible in its power and whatever it takes to safeguard these. Yes, the power of the US is gradually waning and it simply can’t continue forever borrowing money from China and Japan to embark on its advised colonist and imperialist wars in the vain expectation of propping up its aspirations for ongoing world hegemony; but neither can dictators, Arabs or others, carry on thinking that all they need to do in order to stay permanently in power is hitch their horses to the wagon of the United States and carry on deluding themselves they can consistently by means of excessive, military brute force, torture, intimidation, mass killings and one-sided alliances with the west and especially the United States of America, where it’s they who give and the west that takes, hold back either permanently or even indeterminately the tsunami of revolutionary change that destructively for them is racing unstoppably towards their shores to engulf and entirely sweep away the whole rotten edifice which they’ve constructed, lavishly thrived on but can no longer sustain or protect.

And how much longer I ask myself and so should they, can these dictators rely on the apathy of the American public to the immoral and venal activities of their governments to help bale them out? When it’s quite clear that the previously slow awakening by the US public to what has and continuing to be done in their name by successive US administrations is itself fast developing into a tidal wave of change within America as more and more people there spurred on by the demonstrations in Wisconsin and with placards proclaiming, We’re all Egyptians now, a clear reference to the recent events in Egypt and the ouster of Hosni Mubarak by waves of popular Egyptian protests, significantly by the youth of that country, are categorically and in reference to United States’ foreign policy that globally impacts hugely but negatively on all Americans wherever they are but particularly at home, are increasingly loudly saying to their government: Not in my name! And to that end it’s quite evident that the writing is already on the wall and not only for US hegemony in the Middle East but also these reprehensible dictators that they prop up and who like ostriches continue to bury their heads in the sands of the Arabian desert.

The people of Malaysia and particularly Kenya were both glad to see the back of Britain which carried out mindboggling atrocities in these two separate and distinct countries, and the annals of colonialism are replete with the barbarities that the British wreaked on the Malaysians and Kenyans specifically who were merely demanding the right to have their countries and natural resources swiftly returned to them and to be placed under their ownership and control, as well as to exercise and enjoy the indisputable human right to rule themselves and freely determine their own destinies. I think it’s what most people would recognize as independence and what Winton Churchill in the context of Britain during World War Two when ironically thousands of Kenyans and Malaysians fought for Britain, with several of them paying the ultimate price, said somewhat grandiloquently that Britons under no circumstance would ever surrender. But while it was wrong and deeply offensive it seemed for imperialist white Britons to even think of the prospect let alone experience the reality of having the jackboots of white, German Nazis on their necks, no such sensitivities or sensibilities though were deemed to be necessary in the case of Asians and Africans on the part of these same Brits. That said, Churchill wasn’t only a committed arch imperialist with a litany of war crimes and crimes against humanity the length of one’s arm, he was also a staunch eugenicist who infamously said and meant it that the UN wasn’t for subject peoples.

A view shared and even strongly endorsed by many white Britons; and in fact when Kenya and Malaysia finally got their independence from Britain one of one of those deeply involved in the torture and other horrific atrocities too gruesome to detail here against Kenyans is a Brit called Ian Henderson. Henderson didn’t stay in Kenya after it became independent but instead moved to Bahrain at the request of the ruler there who was obviously quite impressed by his CV and handiwork in Kenya, offering the job of Chief Security Consultant – a cynical euphemism for chief torturer – and where Ian Henderson still carries out his trade. But none of this is new as western leaders and the media alike are fully aware of Henderson’s past; know exactly where he is, and significantly what he’s up to. But in the context of the current popular and peaceful protests in the region I don’t hear any of these brazen hypocrites calling for his arrest, charge and prosecution at The Hague or anywhere else for that matter, and if found guilty which he most certainly would be, in view of the huge mountain of well-documented evidence against him, be properly and severely dealt with.

Even so, of the three musketeers who’re either wielding their hegemony on or trying to impress their influence over the people of the Middle East the United States is still the major one, while France, despite the grandiose strutting of Nicolas Sarkozy, is very much the junior partner of these three interlopers in the Middle East that consist of the United States, Britain and France itself. However, while Britain seems to be either reluctant to or markedly incapable of getting used to and actually coming to grips with the reality that it has lost an empire and the infamous glory days of Rule Britannia and Britons never will be slaves – though they had no scruples at all about enslaving tens of mills of Africans – are gone forever and still by clinging to the coat tails of the United States acts as though it is still a world power, France’s actions are evidently driven by political schizophrenia. Since it’s a country postulating that it’s a 21st Century entity when in fact at its very core and deep in the psyche of most white Frenchmen and women is Vichy France: the haunting spectre of the ingratiating Nazi-collaborators who both astounded and impressed Germany with the enthusiastic, dedicated and ruthless efficiency in which they savagely informed on, relentlessly rounded up and piteously dispatched and deported literally millions of French Jews and others wanted by the Nazis to concentration and death camps all around Europe, and who with the endemic fervour of the imposters they were endeavoured to and even post-war succeeded in stealing and wrapping themselves up in the true clothes of the French Resistance. A brave band of men and women that consisted almost entirely of French colonials from France’s African, Arab and Caribbean colonies, a number of white expatriate Frenchmen and women who came principally from these colonial territories and the likes of Josephine Baker: the black American singer who had no connections to France but none the less imbued by a strong sense of racial injustice at home in her native USA, and completely horrified by what Jews and many others were being systematically subjected to in Europe at the hands of the Nazis, was one of the first to join the Resistance while the likes of Maurice Chevalier openly and affectionately welcomed the Nazis to France, voluntarily and willingly played host to them, and as their enthusiastic informers were their eyes and ears underscored the deaths of all those whom the Nazis considered as and referred to as Die Untermenschen.

Post-war France did honour Josephine Baker with the country’s highest award, The Legion of Honour, but unlike Maurice Chevalier whose professional career, outside of being a grass that is, took on a meteoric rise Josephine Baker finally died in near poverty.

Therefore, it’s easy in the above circumstances to see why France’s foreign policy is in such a terrible mess and why it is that Nicolas Sarkozy who, bearing in mind his own origins as well as those of his closest family members, ought really to know better often behaves in the weird manner that he does. But then Zionists and particularly arch ones carrying a load of unresolved baggage as is clearly the case in Sarkozy’s situation, invariably find themselves, irrespective of their disparate faiths, racial origins or ethnicity, cruelly handicapped by political and economic dogma which when forcefully confronted by an ever moving kaleidoscope of poplar change or a real yearning for it of the sort the world has been forced to sit up, watch and admire sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East, it becomes quite powerless in adjusting to it or doing anything that remotely can be construed as constructive to assist it, and instinctively falls back on what it knows best; control, or in a worst case scenario damage limitation. Sarkozy’s France is doing precisely that; and though the man himself might be fearful of losing in his country’s presidential elections in 2012, France will still be fundamentally the same old Vichy Republic it has been since Germany’s storm troopers walked welcomingly into Paris. How else can one logically account for the bizarre phenomenon and huge popularity of Madame Marine Le Pen and the National Front?

This could explain the seemingly obsessive hard-line and at times paranoid stance that France is taking against Libya while at the same time being completely mum about the much worse atrocities being carried out by Saudi Arabia. So why is this so? The answer is simple. Saudi Arabia isn’t seen as nor would it want, for very obvious reasons, to be perceived as a threat to Israel’s presence and usurper’s role in the Middle East; Libya, though, whether under Colonel Gaddafi’s autocracy or an authentic democratic replacement of his regime furnishes no such guarantees for this European, largely white controlled and colonialist implant in the region. Moreover, a unified, fully integrated, in terms of its territorial jurisdiction, truly democratic, secular and sovereign Palestine or Palestine and Israel (needlessly quibbling over a name is a futile exercise I believe) that grants and guarantees full and equitable social and political rights, including most importantly the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly and the right to vote, to all its citizens regardless of their gender, skin colour, race, ethnicity, place of origin, sexual orientation, confessional allegiance or none at all is a recurring nightmare to arch Zionists like Nicholas Sarkozy, his counterparts at home and throughout wider Europe and, of course, those across the English Channel in the home of the Balfour Declaration like David Cameron who would do anything to pacify their individual and collective holocaust demons. Therefore, Saudi Arabia, the most unfree state in the world, is for being a reliable western cat’s-paw like granted like Israel full immunity by the same west for what it does generally and is currently doing in Bahrain.

So to inject some much needed balance in these proceedings and not just naively or uncaringly view things simply through the prism of western eyes, let’s take a closer and objective look at the wider picture before us and instead of readily succumbing to this western blitz of deceitful, self-serving, propagandistic, highly dangerous and vociferous calls for action against the state of Libya substitute that country for Israel: a country from where much worse carnage has been and is still being carried out under the spurious guise of self-defence or necessary pre-emptive action to protect its citizen’ security and the sovereign integrity of Israel itself from suspected terrorists attacks allegedly by the Palestinians, notably Hamas, and their Lebanese counterparts in the form of Hezbollah, not withstanding the glaring fact that the entity that became Israel has always, prior as well as subsequent to its official creation as a state, waged unrelenting warfare, that constantly has been unprovoked, against all of its Arab neighbours at some time or other, and done so quite savagely and destructively by land, sea and from the air.

The 22 day massacre of Gazans between December 2008 and January 2009 when over 1.600 innocent Palestinian men, largely seniors, women and children were callously obliterated by Israeli aerial bombardment, tanks, ground forces and amphibious assaults against the backdrop of a brutal, barbaric, all-inclusive and illegal siege of the tiny, Palestinian refugee enclave of Gaza quite literally turned by the Israelis into the world’s largest and most infamous open-air jail that has been in operation now for several years contrary to all civilized norms of conduct and internationally recognized laws readily comes to mind; as does the malicious, unprovoked unwarranted and deadly attack on the Mavi Marmara, and the Lebanese killing fields of Sabra and Shatilla to provide just three examples in a series of other regrettably ongoing but all the same unpardonable, callous war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated as always against innocent, defenceless civilians by Israel through deliberate cats that honestly can only be described as state sanctioned murder.

For even if a country has valid reasons for retaliatory action against an adversary, of whatever description, that it says has attacked it, it is none the less specifically prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, UN resolutions and other universally recognized international laws from carrying out collective punishments of any sort against those it alleges are directly or indirectly involved with these infringements of its territorial sovereignty or the security of its citizens or both these things, as well as all other persons who it argues, however imprecise or utterly fraudulent these claims might be, are connected in some way or other with the assumed architects and executors of these unprovoked attacks; yet Israel is flouting with impunity and clearly given immunity by the west to do so these same international statutes and doing so openly on completely spurious grounds, when the whole world already knows that the real reason for its disregard of internal law in the Palestinian context is that Hamas, which incidentally it created as a counterweight to Fatah when it considered that organization a terrorist entity and wanted to play the old colonial game of divide and rule, won closely monitored, internationally called for and scrutinized, free and fair democratic elections in the remaining Palestinian territories that Israel still continues to illegally occupy. An outcome that didn’t please the Israelis who in the meantime had fallen out with Hamas or the west for that matter, principally the US and Britain that between themselves had made a rapprochement with the corrupt but now malleable Fatah who they clearly felt they could do business with except for one unforeseen but major complication that Hamas who they' had in the meantime given Fatah’s former appellation of a terrorist organization to stood in the way of any such arrangements; for having fully and willingly engaged in the same democratic processes that these sanctimonious, western hypocrites perpetually preach about particularly to the Arabs and other Third World citizenry Hamas had not only unreservedly taken part in them but, seen from the perverted perception of these same western hypocrites, had furthermore had the audacity and sheer temerity to actually win these elections by fair means.

Vindictively therefore, especially for making them all look like the bunch of fools they actually are, Hamas had to be globally shunned and discriminatorily punished at the same time by every means available to the west that aggressively, very pro-actively and acting fully in consort with Israel chosen to do their dirty work immediately set out their stall of intentions towards Hamas as this western collective of elected government criminals wasted no time at all in getting down to work. First Hamas had to be extensively isolated and they began the process of doing this by rather bizarrely refusing to recognize them as the lawful government of the Palestinian people, even though by a massive landslide, in what undeniably were free, fair and democratically held elections Hamas had clearly won a mandate to be such, claiming that they were terrorists; next and this showed the perverse lengths that the major powers in the west would go to, the United States and UK cynically and maliciously used their international clout but more especially their positions as permanent members of the UN Security Council to browbeat, intimidate and bribe other governments globally to follow their disgraceful lead and declare Hamas to be a terrorist organization, which to their eternal shame many of them went along with.

Having successfully achieved their declared objectives through diplomatic and propagandistic means specifically designed to have Hamas regarded as a dangerous terrorist organization and effectively outlawed by many governments around the world either sympathetic to, or as was more likely the case absolutely petrified of the vicious and long reach of the arm of British and particularly US vengeance knowingly capable of wreaking unspeakable retribution if the owner perceives himself to be slighted or has a request, usually in the form of a demand turned down, and so rather that court trouble or risk this the respondent quietly, expediently and meekly do what they’re told to do, and Zionist western media like the BBC and Fox News all very eager to chip in and do their lying best to discredit, demonize, disgrace and dehumanize Hamas, the US and UK quickly and spitefully turned their attention to physically destroying Hamas; and relying on the common Arab penchant for infighting, having no solidarity among themselves whatsoever, exceedingly biddable when it comes to being easily bribed, and quite ready even to sell their own mothers if offered an adequate cash inducement and the realistic opportunity of getting a visa and green cared to live, work and travel in the United States, the stage was all set to implement, sit back and reap the rewards of the old stratagem of divide and rule.

To this end and just as they did with Saddam Hussein against Iran the US and Britain armed, psychologically, logistically and economically supported and, fatefully for the Palestinians, incited an emboldened but venal Fatah leadership to use its security forces to attack Hamas in the realistic hope of crushing it. However, with the uncanny prescience of what was in the offing Hamas got its proverbial oar in first and pre-emptively and spectacularly routed Fatah’s bully boys, securing Gaza in the process as its stronghold, and would almost certainly have exercise similar, overall control of the West Bank too had Israel not intervened in the fray at the very last moment at the behest of a capitulating Fatah and with the blessing of the United States of America to save the sorry butts of these wholly disreputable, blood-sucking leeches, as Wikileaks graphically exposed them to be, who are quite happy to exploit, cruelly sell out, heartlessly marginalize and actively assist in the confinement of their own people to perpetual slavery and degradation while unreservedly utilizing their enduring misery and abject poverty to disingenuously garner sympathy for their own selves as Palestinians in order to become fat cats off the filthy lucre of US and EU blood money.

Yes! These are the same people who while openly professing to be promoting and defending the rights of the Palestinian people actually conspired with their implacable enemies to have Yasser Arafat the courageous champion of Palestinian unity and self-determination poisoned. What a truly despicable bunch of grasping blockheads these poor excuses for members of the human race, and kleptocrats everyone of the, are!

With Gaza now firmly in the control of Hamas and with the people there solidly behind their elected leaders and government, the west and Israel with Fatah skulking miserably in the wings and smarting from their humiliation at the hands of Hamas’s forces but yearning for revenge all the same, having run out of all other devious options to dislodge Hamas and either incapable of or totally unwilling to engage in any kind of rapprochement with the elected government of the Palestinian people, decided to inflict punitive collective punishments on all Gazans in the hope of pressurizing them to abandon and ultimately turn their ire not on their oppressors but Hamas instead; and when that didn’t happen speedily saw to it that Israel with the full authorization of the United States, the backing of the EU, other western countries, their allies and cats-paws in North Africa and the Middle East, notably Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, and contemptibly with the tacit support of Fatah was given carte blanche to do whatever it wanted in Gaza, with no questions asked or explanations required; and that is exactly what happened and is still the policy in operation.
Meanwhile, the Zionists, neo-cons, US Christian fundamentalists with their skewed and utterly lunatic notions of the teachings of the Bible juxtaposed with their own interpretations of these that would make the incoherent statements of the evidently demented Charles Mansion appear in comparison as the acme of rationality but nevertheless are very influential people politically in the United States together with the willing dupes like the corrupt leadership of Fatah look on gleefully at these insane massacres that are premeditatedly, calculatingly and cataclysmically visited with sickening regularity on the population of Gaza; while Zionist broadcasting media like the BBC either ignore and refuse to report these present day pogroms and holocausts of the Palestinians or if compelled to do so, because what has taken place as in the case of the highly unwarranted and murderous attack on the Mavi Marmara surpasses in villainous terms Israel’s own basic and frequently exhibited penchant for vulgar barbarism, and therefore the story can’t be sidelined without showing up the BBC for what it really is, something most Britain already know about but the BBC wouldn’t want to become commonplace outside the UK, the coverage given is always ephemeral, wilfully misleading, heavily slanted in favour of Israel and with the disastrous consequences stemming from what has taken place unfailingly and falsely attributed to acts of terrorism that are laid firmly at the feet of Hamas.

But forget the BBC, which is a dead man walking anyway; more relevant is, where has all or any of this got Fatah? The answer is clearly, absolutely nowhere; as it has not been able to get any concessions from Israel and never will – the plethora of illegal settlements on Palestinian lands and East Jerusalem still goes on apace for all of Fatah’s toadying to the deeply paranoid, and instinctively aggressive successive rulers of this Zionist, apartheid state, and will defiantly continue doing so to the indifference of the genuine wishes of the real Palestinian people for as long as Fatah, or any other Palestinian movement come to that, continues to cravenly bend the knee of abject subservience to the Israeli Zionists, US neo-con fundamentalists and British and European Islamophobes while at the same time callously betraying and undermining the true interests of their fellow Palestinians and doing so specifically for personal financial gain; little surprise then that Israel has no real motivation to listen to or take heed of anything that Fatah says and continues to treat that body with the utter contempt it richly deserves but in marked contrast regards Hamas as a thorn in its side because its approach to the problems created for the Palestinians by Israel and the west is perceptibly and diametrically different to that of the Fatah sycophants.

Nevertheless the Fatah kleptocrats will probably console themselves that their unpardonable treachery ensures they don’t have to live in the everyday harsh conditions and squalor of the longstanding refugee camps that were seen by their earliest occupants as a temporary respite from the harsh reality of the violent expulsion of themselves from their homeland, Palestine while they attempted to sort their lives out and tried to regain some sort of normality in them and hopefully a future; but, instead, several generations later the seething swamps of despair, poverty, utter hopelessness, anger, frustration and desperation that have come to characterize and bedevil the daily lives of these Palestinian refugees also understandably fuel a thirst for revenge over the injustices, barbarous maltreatment and calculated marginalization that all those who have ever lived in these refugee camps have experienced at some time or other, while the likes of those in the Fatah leadership, Nero-like as Rome burnt, continue to play footloose and fancy free with their lives and future.

And this is graphically illustrated in Gaza where the people there confined to an open air prison are inhumanely penned in like animals for the slaughter on this small enclave of wretchedness, unable to go about their daily lives in freedom and security, consistently compelled to live on a diet of charitable handouts or else use their resourcefulness to survive, and recurrently with the constant fear of having what homes and means of livelihood they have left similarly and quite arbitrarily like their previous ones destroyed by the Israelis, and knowing that at any time and under the lamest of pretexts or none at all their lives and those of family members and friends, routinely under threat, can be readily snuffed out by Israeli warplanes, gunboats and invading troops that they can do absolutely nothing about while those who can avert their eyes perhaps to shield their embarrassment.

Just as they do to the rigidly enforced Bantustan-like state of existence that the inmates of this open air jail Gaza are humiliatingly forced to bear as part of the daily ritual of their controlled lives; and while their incarceration is mocked, applauded and reinforced by their gaolers they are obliged to helplessly stand by and observe more of their progressively shrinking land area unilaterally and compulsorily taken away from them and in arrogant defiance of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws given over for the construction of yet more illegal settlements for Zionist immigrants from Russia and the former Soviet Union satellite states; because in the purely selfish interests of the imperialist west the Zionist state of Israel cannot be allowed to reform itself nor for that matter fail. This despite the little known fact of what official Israeli statistics show but the authorities there try to keep the lid on that the myth of Israel being uniquely a home for the Jews is simply that; as increasingly greater numbers of those who are genuine, practising Jews and even have holocaust connections as well, utterly horrified and completely disgusted by what’s being done in their name and how this Zionist entity with no religious component to it whatever has fraudulently hijacked and is deviously usurping the memories of Europe’s holocaust victims and centuries of real Jewish abuse on that continent for their own political and economic empowerment, are leaving Israel to live elsewhere. Hence the Israeli government’s actions of rolling out the red carpet for these ex-communist ruled Zionists so as to maintain the existing population and racial demographic equilibrium of the state of Israel and by consolidating this ensure that white Caucasians and their elite who rule the country stay in the ascendency; and one of the principal reasons no doubt why Russia is noticeably silent on the matter.

Food for thought, but will all those European and white led countries from Italy in the south to Norway at the top of Europe, Canada and the usual suspects like the United States and Britain falling over themselves in their rush for regime change in Libya and to maintain the status quo in Africa and the Middle East that is so advantageous to them take similar, extreme measures against Israel or even Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE as those which they’ve successfully demanded and got from their corrupt, Old Boys Club, aka the UN Security Council under UN Resolution 1973 in relation to Colonel Gaddafi’s Libya? Don’t bank on it or hold your breath on that one; it simply won’t happen. On the contrary, David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s Con-Dem coalition government in Britain actually wants to scrap the law of universal jurisdiction which as it currently stands would permit British citizens to apply to their local courts to have Israeli war criminals and others who set foot in Britain to be arrested on the warrant of such a court and tried in the UK for their alleged crimes, and if found guilty serve their guilty serve their sentences in British jails. But this is precisely what Cameron and his ilk don’t want and would prefer that their fellow Zionists, just like Tony Blair and George W. Bush continue to enjoy the immunity that such well-heeled criminals, and particularly if they are Zionist ones feel is their inalienable right. This is a man that like Barack Obama speaks eloquently, while hoping that the rest of us either don’t see, or are simply too stupid to comprehend what it is when we see it, the hypocrisy dripping saliva-like from his lips as quite incredibly he waxes lyrically about the popular revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt behaving like Hillary Clinton in Tunisia when she too fraudulently tried to put across the same impression, that they are both the godparents of these revolutions when the whole world knows otherwise; of how they all waited, supporting their erstwhile dictator allies until the very last minute and changing horses midstream only when it became quite obvious that the revolutionaries had the upper hand and the demise of their long-term cats paws was inevitable. This as David Cameron leading a team of British arms sellers was in the very North African and Middle Eastern regions drumming up support for British arms sales. These people let’s face it have the cheek of the Devil.

Meanwhile, on the 18 March 2011 the French government of Nicolas Sarkozy prosecuted a number of French activists whose heinous crime, in the eyes of the lunatic Sarkozy regime, was to stage a number of peaceful protests in the streets and supermarkets around France, but principally in the Paris area, which didn’t inconvenience, harass, obstruct or annoy anyone as they were all conducted amiably and in a cheerful atmosphere, but whose purpose was to draw public attention to and garner support against the continuing, appalling plight of the Palestinian people under Israeli occupation of their land and the control of their lives, and show solidarity with these people by asking shoppers and passersby alike to boycott Israeli produced goods, products and services on offer in France. These jocund demos were similar in nature to the kind of protests that members of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in the United Kingdom and analogous organizations worldwide had successfully used in the face of intransigent western governmental support for apartheid South Africa in contrast to the inflexible opposition and often heavy-handed tactics of containment that they regularly employed against these activists in capitals like Paris, London, Madrid, Lisbon, Rome and many others globally to incorporate Oslo, Athens and Washington, to show their support and solidarity with the oppressed people of South Africa. Noble noble, courageous and selfless actions that accumulatively and over time piled up irresistible pressure on apartheid South Africa and its western backers that ultimately saw the official dismantling of apartheid in South Africa concomitant with the heralding of a new dawn that ushered in the forces of democracy in that superbly beautiful country.

By no means an easy task for sure but nevertheless well worth the effort, since one of the worst foot-draggers and also an implacable enemy of change for the people of South Africa was the mighty USA, which carried on supporting racist South Africa, that it secretly gave nuclear and biological weapons to, militarily, economically, politically and diplomatically right up to the moment that apartheid fell, the last western government to do so; and only shortly prior to the inauguration of Barack Obama as President embarrassedly took the African National Congress (ANC) that under Nelson Mandela, no less, had become the democratically elected and lawful government of South Africa off its list of terrorists; which meant that luminaries like Nelson Mandela himself and Archbishop Desmond Tutu: both South Africans, both members of the ANC, couldn’t have visited the United States of America without specific authorization from the US State Department, while apartheid ex-leaders who’d sponsored state murder at home and terrorism abroad and others linked to them had no such hindrances put in their way, and in theory Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu could have been arrested by Interpol, sensibly they weren’t, on the basis of this terrorist appellation given to their organization and de facto themselves by the United States if they set foot out of South Africa. How ironic; two universally respected black figures, one a hugely popular, democratically elected president of his country, the other a similarly charismatic, well like man of the cloth, both men immensely revered but deemed to be terrorists for standing up for themselves and their countrymen and demanding the same democratic freedoms which the US deceives a significantly huge part of the world into believing that it’s wholeheartedly wedded to as well as steadfastly committed to promoting for all humanity.

Either totally ignorant of the relative recent past or just too stupid to learn from it, the pathetic, disingenuous and utterly lame excuse that Sarkozy’s state prosecutor gave for this ludicrous action on behalf the state is that it was done to protect the integrity of France’s anti-hate laws, since what these demonstrators, who were mainly students, were doing was anti-Semitic. How on earth he figured that out when no mention was ever made of religion or race for that matter in the equation of what these young people were doing beats me. Routinely the vicious venom spat out aggressively at others, primarily non-whites and others like immigrant gypsy families from other EU countries, notably Romania and Hungry, to France is mindboggling as well as undeniably and overtly racist coming as it frequently does from the French right and ultra far right like Marine Le Pen’s National Front; but amidst the deafening silence from the French populace at large attendant to these racist attacks and outbursts even from Nicolas Sarkozy himself, I don’t see any prosecutions either being contemplated or made; so there’s clearly a hidden agenda behind all this that Sarkozy’s prosecutorial accomplices are quite hell bent on furthering in order to improve his plummeting esteem and support among the French voters.

What makes this current prosecution even more bizarre is the indisputable fact that the Israelis, whose goods and services these young people and others want to see boycotted in France and elsewhere, aren’t Semites; so brandishing state sponsored official accusations that carry dire legal consequences for those accused and found guilty of anti-Semitism by people, French or others, for criticizing Israelis not because of their race or religion but because of their ruthless, illegal and immoral repression of the Palestinians whose country they’ve usurped, is downright idiotic, counterproductive and smacks of McCarthyism and the selective suppression of the right to freedom of speech in order to silence critics of Zionist, apartheid Israel.

European Jews and Zionists in Israel, not necessarily the same thing so don’t conflate them into one, who sit atop the dung heap of the hierarchal system in that stolen land they illegally hold on to are European Caucasians and have never been Semites. Those Europeans that follow Judaism are the descendants of white, European Caucasians whose ancestors converted to that faith, no different in procedural terms to their white kith and kin back in Europe who converted to Christianity, and like all Muslims, whether any of these people are converts or were actually born into their particular faith, belong to the three monolithic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Island, that were founded by genuine Semites. So while white, Caucasian Europeans are not, have never been, and can never logically be classed as Semites the Palestinians, on the other hand, are biologically and racially Semites; but you’re never told that, are you? And it matters not what religion or none that these Palestinians follow, they’ll always be Semites; in the same way that an Eskimo is biologically and racially an Eskimo but conversely a European living in Canada, whether or not he or she was born in that country, cannot logically confer on themselves or even have someone else do it for them and have them declared an Eskimo

Therefore, while Christians, Muslims and Jews are perfectly at liberty to say that they follow a Semitic religion because the founders of their own faiths were Semites, unless and until any of them can DNA-prove that they are biologically and racially Semites, then it’s totally absurd as in the Eskimo analogy I gave earlier, for them to claim they’re Semites and, furthermore, state that they have an unchallenged right to accuse or harass an individual or persons who criticize them, and justly so, on unrelated issues to their faith or racial origins as being anti-Semitic. It’s the customary bolthole and the refuge of last resort for the inveterate scoundrel or those who want to deflect attention away from the disreputable person or persons they are and, therefore, apply all means, even dishonestly resorting to the law, to silence valid criticism; and I can see, although I personally find it absolutely repugnant, why desperate Zionists, particularly those who have stolen and cloak themselves ostentatiously and dishonestly in the clothes of Judaism, would want and invariably resort to behaving in this lying and utterly despicable manner.

Such people are actually sick, crying wolf as and when it suits them; but their contrived and spurious antics of mortification have been used so frequently that they have essentially worn thin and have become passé and no longer convincing or as effective as they once were. Few people, and certainly no sensible or objectively thinking ones, fall for this blackmailing ruse anymore, or like Nicolas Sarkozy thinks it can still be used effectively and has some mileage left in it still. But no number of sham prosecutions in France or anywhere else come to that of people with consciences will hold back or permanently derail the just cause of the Palestinian people, in the eyes of the world, and their lawful right to have their stolen country restored to them; their right of return to it officially recognized, sanctioned and guaranteed; their right to determine who they should have as their democratically elected and lawful leaders and have their choices recognized, accepted and respected; or how they should run their own lives and affairs without the patronizing paternalism of whites living in Europe and the lands globally that they too have stolen in brutal, genocidal fashion from the indigenous people there, and unasked, persistently telling them what’s best for them, because as they’re expected to think whites always know best.

Sarkozy has finally got his way over Libya and has managed this behind the skimpy fig leaf of that most auspicious and democratic of bodies, the Arab league – a more disreputable bunch of savage Neanderthal cutthroats still living blissfully in the Dark Ages you wouldn’t have wished to meet – dishonestly and corruptly depicted as cover and presented by him and the other usual white suspects from Europe and the entrenched colonialist outposts of the US and Canada as a universal and authentic authorization from the Arab streets, the genuine and unified voices of the Arab masses so to speak, but which it isn’t, to attack Libya. Odyssey Dawn: the farcically named military offensive against Colonel Gaddafi’s Libya, has started; this though against the backdrop of the deafening silence from the same gung-ho advocates and prosecutors of Libya’s war to what is simultaneously happening in Bahrain and Yemen and is much worse there; but that’s only to be expected, such is the rank and self-serving hypocrisy of the west.

France’s new, ludicrously posturing, modern day Bonaparte, as Nicolas Sarkozy evidently sees himself, is in his element; flamboyantly strutting around like a demented peacock while at the same time calculatingly working out how best he can use this military adventurism that he has pushed so hard for and with the world’s media spotlight presently focussed on him, a situation which he is well aware won’t last forever, to his political advantage at home by beating Marine Le Pen in the 2012 presidential elections, and simultaneously keep French oil companies like Total operating in Libya happy and onside. And without any exceptions all the others that are involved in this pre-meditated war have pressing economic, political and even personal issues which they know they must attend to, that bedevil the success of their governments and even their political careers, even though they don’t have the foggiest notion how to effectively deal with these problems to the general improvement in the lives or the overall satisfaction of their volatile electorates who feel, justifiably so, that they’ve been hard done by these incompetent and hopelessly out of touch elitist administrations that run their lives.

There’s Barack Obama: Mr false hope and short change; offering the US voters change which they can’t any longer trust or believe in because domestically and in terms of foreign policy as well it’s the same George W. Bush agenda that enriches and empowers the rich, the banks and the armaments industry: the purveyors of death that literally make a killing from their intimate and financial links with Congress, the Pentagon and the President, while the said president and the law makers who’re constitutionally charged with looking after the population do absolutely nothing for average America, a situation they cynically make much worse by shifting local jobs overseas to cheap-wage locations; ruthlessly dismantling hard-won collective bargaining rights to keep wages down while putting no such restrictions on the bonuses of fat cat bankers and to add insult to injury saddling the already financially hard-pressed taxpayer lumbered with debts of their own, foreclosures of their homes and businesses and the ever worrying prospect of job losses with massive debts from the bailouts given to banks and blue chip, financial institutions that behaved recklessly and even criminally with the money of their trusting investors, some of whom lost everything. In the case of Canada’s prime minster it’s the same story with the added focus that he’s a hugely despised man as well. Belgium: the hapless schizophrenic of Europe; a teetering failed state unable to sort out its affairs and form a viable government despite having held elections several months back, the longest such political shambles in Europe’s history and probably that of the world but yet this conspicuously divided country fractured along European tribal fault lines still patronizingly assumes that it knows what is best for Libya.

Then there’s Denmark and Holland with severe economic problems to contend with and that they are seemingly incapable of getting on top of exacerbated in the wake of these by virulent racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia. But paedophilia and prostitution rampant in both these countries are evidently okay, and being morally upright countries they’ve set themselves up as both judge and jury of the state of affairs in Libya and clearly feel they’re entitled to a piece of the action there. Italy, another bastion of high morals and political probity exemplified in the form of Silvio Berlusconi and his political apparatus there with a prime Minister who doesn’t mind getting his hands dirty in more ways than one and, of course why not in Libya a former Italian colony, in the great hope that in doing so he will deflect the public’s attention and their justified revulsion of him away from his underage sex problems with among others Moroccan minors, plus the overall corruption replete in his private and public lives. Spain: an economic basket case and the home of ETA, and like Italy has a long history of fascism and in Spain’s case global repression and the genocide of indigenous peoples, expertise that this country is confident will be immensely beneficial in Libya’s war, or more aptly the war on Libya. And let’s not forget Greece: a pathetic and despairingly hopelessly corrupt country with a lengthy history of repressive military dictatorships compounded with an incredible incompetence in running its own affairs, hence the begging bowl pathetically held up to the rest of the world and its humiliating status as a pauper. But hey, this Greek regime also in spite of all that still knows what is best for Libya and the Libyans. Honestly, you couldn’t make any of this up!

Germany’s Angela Merkel, meanwhile, cheerleading from the sidelines won’t be a part of the overt operations against Libya. Nothing whatsoever to do with a non-interventionist policy of not interfering in the domestic affairs of another sovereign country or an aversion to selective regime change. God forbid, no! Frau Merkel would very much like to be a part of the action which would put Germany further into the full glare of the world’s spotlight and advance her desire and that of others in her party to see Germany as a permanent member of and another white knight on the UN Security Council; but she has to be extremely cautious about any war moves at this moment in time. A power freak, think back to her treacherous and completely ruthless backstabbing of her mentor Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Merkel badly wants to remain Chancellor of Germany and will do anything to realize this ambition. But she’s no fool; she knows that important elections are looming in one of Germany’s principal states and having previously watched her party have a thorough drubbing in recent state elections caution and damage limitation are absolute prerequisites for her. So there’ll be no German troops sent to Libya, I’m afraid, she privately tells NATO; since dispatching ground forces or strike aircraft there in view of her dodgy domestic situation at home might further isolate, scare off or even annoy German voters, and she couldn’t risk that.

Germany’s absence in operational terms from this Libyan-based, feeding frenzy by ubiquitous, predatory, white Caucasian, military sharks didn’t hamper this particular Libyan adventure in anyway though as sufficient numbers were already in situ to ensure that their selected prey got the very worst of it. In essence an overkill but an undertaking nevertheless that raised a number of very pertinent questions and sets one wondering; why were so many countries, everyone of them, including the world’s only super-power the USA, equipped with the most advanced and sophisticated weaponry needed to subdue a country of just five million people, a mere fraction of their own both individually and collectively; which moreover doesn’t have the firepower to match any of them separately or collectively, yet despite these known facts are still ganging up like demented and terrifying bullies to wreak havoc on it?

Could it be that in addition to a wish for regime change and the cupidity to get their hands fully on and have complete dominion over Libya’s oil wealth, as was done in Iraq, there was another much more hideous motive as well, that of turning Libya into a live firing range for upgraded western weapons or weapons not previously tested in a combat situation as happened with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2; the fire bombing of Dresden and the concomitant saturation bombing of Hamburg also in the Second World War; the systematic use of Agent Orange over Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam during the Vietnamese War, and in the Iraq wars the methodical and widespread use of phosphorous bombs and other ammunition containing depleted uranium; each scenario leaving a legacy of disastrous human consequences that are prevalent to this day?

Many of these countries are arms manufacturers and arms dealers, and the arms industry is a powerful, very influential and a highly lucrative one, and where better or more effectively to show case your latest instruments of death, power and influence than in an actual theatre of war? During the Falkland’s/Malvinas War between Britain and Argentina British submarines and warships used the hitherto unknown, and in battle conditions thoroughly untested French Exocet missile to deadly effect against the Argentineans; an elated France then happily used and would later shamelessly capitalize on the effectiveness of the Exocet missile to promote and enhance enormously its arms sales generally and particularly of this weapon worldwide. For other than what I’m hypothesizing here, with so many of these white, imperialist, former colonialist and Medieval type crusading states queuing up to knock the living daylights out of Libya: a Muslim, North African country that poses no threat to the internal security or overall sovereignty of any of these countries, regardless of whether or not it is engaged in a civil war with factions of its own people, civil wars which many of these same sanctimonious countries have themselves waged in the past, what they are doing would to the mind of any intelligent and objective person seem like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. But we all know that isn’t the case.

This leaves us with David Cameron, the would-be Tony Blair. Realizing that a summer of discontent with the public sector workers, trade unions, protesting students and a disgruntled public feeling the pinch from the economic crunch they’ve been subjected to as a consequence of untrammelled neo-con liberalism, with unemployment running high, threatened job losses on the way and homes being repossessed at an alarming rate while the banks they were forced to bail out and continue doing so, carry on with their old bankrupt practices, and among these awarding huge bonuses to their bosses, David Cameron well aware that British voters didn’t trust him or his Conservative Party enough to give them an overall majority in the House of Commons even though they desperately wanted to see the back of Gordon Brown, desperately needs a distraction himself away from his mushrooming domestic woes, and going to war with Libya he’s fervently hoping will do that, just as the Falkland’s War did for Margaret Thatcher, another Tory Party leader and British Prime Minister as he himself now is, when her domestic poll ratings were at rock bottom and a similarly convenient war waged against another UK and United States backed dictator saved her bacon.

And were it not that it’s such a deadly serious matter we have the genuinely risible prospect of Barack Obama, David Cameron and the other western suspects in this drama getting into bed with the likes of Morocco: North Africa’s torture capital, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia et all, lauding them as friends and allies whose stability and good governance mustn’t, through the undemocratic and dictatorial practices of Colonel Gaddafi against his own people seeking the right to control their own lives as they see fit which the west never cared about before and really still doesn’t now, be allowed to destabilize these countries or the rest of the Arab region; and to that end these beacons of enlightened democracy, human rights and the rule of law are welcome partners in the west’s combined and concerted bid to remove the capricious Colonel from having the capability to further blight the lives and legitimate hopes of his people; and if having to forcefully employ cruise missiles, submarines, warplanes and the whole panoply of war to achieve this objective, then so be it! The real question is, if like North Korea Libya was in possession of stack of nuclear weapons instead of the vastly second rate, totally antiquated and very much overpriced armaments that the west sold it, would these western countries have been so keen to attack it?. And isn’t it long past the time when the rest of the world constantly browbeaten and blackmailed by these western states with their own nuclear arsenals or under the protection of NATO that has huge stockpiles of them, give the one-finger salute to them And who knows they might even, since their populations are greater, be able to impose their own no-fly zones on the west.

Which planet are Barack Obama and David Cameron on? These Arab League members, some of whom are openly as well as clandestinely using British, US, French, German, Canadian and Norwegian weapons, other military assets and well-tried and tested torture equipment among those from other western countries to maim and kill peaceful protesters in Bahrain and Yemen as they routinely do in their own countries for demanding the same rights Obama and his pals say the Libyan revolutionaries – substitute paid western puppets– and the population generally are legal and morally entitled to, who tolerate no protests of a similar nature in their own states and are well renowned for torture and all other manner of human rights abuses and war crimes sourced out to them by the west, particularly the US under its extraordinary rendition policy as well as implemented on their own volition and committed over several decades are now, these same complicit western leaders are telling us should be seen and regarded as liberators of the Libyan people? Isn’t that analogous to knowingly putting a well known and serial paedophile in charge of the Child Protection Agency of the UK; an inveterate Nazi as minister for Jewish Affairs in the German Bundestag; the Grand Master of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States Deep South as head of the NAACP; or making Silvio Berlusconi Pope because he’s a catholic and lives in Italy where the Vatican is located?

These are people whose hands are literally and copiously dripping with the blood of their own people, and whose raison d’être for existing is greed and power; and in this regard they’re very much like David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy for whom truth or anything vaguely associated with the concept of it don’t feature in any way in the lexicon of their sanctimonious utterances on the vicissitudes of human life.

Just ask yourself, how can anyone with an ounce of commonsense or the most rudimentary of logical thought trust those who are arming the counter revolutionaries in Yemen and Bahrain right under the noses of the US Fifth Fleet there; who illegally invaded Iraq and are still there, never mind what they tell you and want you to believe, occupying it as they’re similarly doing with Afghanistan; who indiscriminately kill thousands of Afghan and Pakistani citizens using unmanned, CIA-operated drones that violate the sovereignty of Pakistan a country with which that United States, Britain or its NATO allies are not at war; that gives Israel carte blanche to do whatever it likes to the Palestinians and routinely provides that Zionist and apartheid state with trusty military, economic, political and diplomatic immunity to carry out its war crimes and crimes against; that openly lied about a CIA killer who gunned down two Pakistanis in cold blood in their own country claiming he had diplomatic immunity, as Barack Obama did knowing it to be a lie, and worse still exerting all sorts of pressure on an extremely crooked, obsequious Pakistani government susceptible to bribes and deeply embedded in the financial pockets of the US not to heed the calls of its people to have this cold-blooded killer tried in Pakistan (just imagine what the situation would have been if the boot was on the other foot notwithstanding the fact that there’s currently an innocent female Pakistani scientist doing a lengthy stretch of prison time in a US jail on manifestly trumped charges against her and for whom the Pakistani government knowing her to be innocent has nevertheless done nothing meaningful on her behalf as she rots where she is ) giving the unmistakeable impression, not that the rest of the world needed to be reminded of this, that only white western lives matter, even when those lives belong to killers? The same west which killed one million Iraqis and displaced another five million in the last Iraq War and before that through punitive sanctions stood by and looked on with total indifference as one million Iraqi children either starved to death or otherwise died from avoidable illnesses due to a lack of appropriate and affordable medicines that UN sanctions against Iraq instigated by the United States stopped them from having, with Madeleine Albright the US Secretary of State at the time when asked about the morality of what was being done and especially to innocent children nonchalantly remarked that it was a price worth paying. This woman is a European Jewish immigrant to the United States who lost relatives, she claims, in Europe’s holocaust; one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out what her reaction would be if a Neo-Nazi made the same remark about them; but, of course, she too would argue that their lives were far more valuable.

How in view of the above named facts can the rulers of these western countries, and especially the united States, the UK and France regard themselves as the liberators of the Libyan people? It’s a contradiction in terms, and you don’t have to be a genius to work that out.

And whether it’s on the matter of transracial adoptions or the bombings of Libya the western mindset is the same; white European Caucasian control at all costs. David Cameron is a fraud; the British voters suspected as much that’s why they didn’t give him a parliamentary majority in the last held UK general elections despite being eager to dump Gordon Brown another avid Zionist and who the British public rightly regarded as a waste of space. Napoleon Sarkozy will meet his Waterloo in the upcoming French elections and when he does Elba, for a number of reasons, would be a fitting place to send him. It’ll be a miracle if Barack: all promises and no real performances, escapes the ignominy of a one-time presidency that is rapidly looming on his horizon; Merkel won’t win the next German elections, and Silvio Berlusconi, if he’s not in jail will probably be still running around Italy telling anyone who cares to listen to him (few if anyone will I suspect) how terribly misunderstood and hard done by, particularly by the Italian judiciary, that he is. The rest of this sorry bunch of 21st Century Crusaders are forgettable, and rightly so, nobodies eclipsed by their own obscurity; but all the same like nothing better, apart from acquiring power by any means possible, than listening to the sound of their own voices. Not unlike the young black guy on the BBC’s Big Questions programme that triggered this comprehensive, no holds barred article that I’ve written.

That young man waxed lyrically, passionately and embarrassingly sanctimoniously about the wondrous benefits and psychological transformation for him – his personal and deeply grateful Paulian metamorphosis on the Road to Damascus as it were – from being adopted by white parents and brought up as a solitary black child in an all-white home and exclusive white area and community from where he had no contact with Blacks, young or old, during the formative years of his upbringing, and where it would have been infra dig in the household that he was raised in for there ever to have been any references to or discussions about black culture, since the prevailing view was that unlike white culture, which was beneficent and had done so many wonderful and transformatory, beneficial things for all mankind, no such black equivalent ever existed, and significantly there were no current signs that an indigenous salutary black culture was in the process of emerging or that such a prospect was likely to occur in the foreseeable future if ever. He then inferred that no black parents, regardless of who they were, where they came from or what their economic standing and education background were, could ever have equalled let alone rivalled the outstanding attributes, which conveniently he omitted to mention, of his white adopted parents.

On a previous radio programme this guy had viciously slammed everything he considered to be even vaguely black in character. Blacks were, he emphasized, unarguably caricatures of all the racial stereotypes trotted out ad nauseum over centuries of colonialism and in the aftermath of it by whites, which his white adopted parents supported and he unhesitatingly following their lead endorsed. To any discerning person this load of garbage sounded worryingly like a turkey happily voting for Christmas and while avidly doing so encouraging all the other turkeys to do the same, fervently pointing out to them as an inducement how wonderful it would be being the centrepiece of the Christmas dinner table; the fact that to do so they would all have to be killed first deliberately not mentioned or else conveniently or even naively overlooked. Nevertheless, one thing in all of this was absolutely undeniable; the white parents of this evidently confused and thoroughly brainwashed black man had undoubtedly done a great job on him, ensuring that while he was enthusiastically encouraged to know of, understand and scrupulously respect the primacy of white Caucasian culture and additionally and significantly taught to solely indentify with it, nothing but distaste was reserved by them for anything considered to be uniquely black.

Barbados: a modern, stable, liberal, progressive and longstanding democracy also but quite surprisingly and unwarrantedly came in for a rather severe and gratuitous drubbing from this pompous, self-adulatory, infuriatingly conceited, garrulous, abysmally ill-informed, pathetic black man who dismissively regarded his root’s country as just another tourist resort; for when asked about his true origins and firmly but persistently pressed on the matter by a member of the audience when he initially baulked at providing this information he very reluctantly, visibly uncomfortably and quite fleetingly admitted that it was Barbados he came from but then went on to robustly and uncompromisingly stress that he was English.

Knowing Barbados as I do I simply bristled with indignation; just another tourist resort I heard myself repeating. Surely he wasn’t referring to the same Barbados that I knew. The island state that in 1649 founded the American colony of Carolina, provided seven of its first 21 governors as well as governors in others states like Massachusetts. Barbados that took on the might of the British Navy, repulsed it, becoming the first and only colony ever to do this, and in the wake of this humiliating defeat meted out to the British forced Oliver Cromwell who’d sent the British fleet to subdue this royalist island because it refused to recognize his rule of England, to sign in 1652 the Treaty of Oistins, so called because the signing of this historic document took place in the town of Oistins on Barbados’ south coast, effectively pledging among many other things to leave the island, unquestionably England’s richest colony whose enormous wealth contributed immensely to financing the English Industrial Revolution, alone.

Little England as it’s affectionately called because of its unique Englishness and strong royalist sentiments, hence the reason for the quarrel between itself and Oliver Cromwell, which coined the phrase “No Taxation Without Representation” which the US revolutionaries borrowed and effectively used in their war of independence against England, then took wholesale the Treaty of Oistins after their success and incorporated it as their Constitution. A tribute doubtlessly to the primary role that Barbados played in assisting George Washington and his revolutionaries in defeating England, not from any hatred of England but because Barbadians deeply felt that those living in the American colonies should have the right to determine their own future and destiny, a cardinal principal which runs through the veins of every Barbadian man and woman. Part of this link stemmed from the fact that in 1751, aged 19, George Washington went to live on the island with his older brother Lawrence who had gone to Barbados to seek medical care and recuperate from tuberculosis; George who had succumbed to smallpox was similarly and successfully treated in Barbados for his illness and, in doing so, his body naturally developed an immunity to the virus; the true significance of which was only understood years later when George’s army was decimated by smallpox during the American War of Independence. Apart from America, Barbados was the only other place where George Washington lived or visited. Significantly, one of the principal Founding Fathers of the US and whose signature is on the US declaration of independence an its Constitution is a Barbadian, prominent enough in his own right to be tipped as President of the fledgling United States of America. This however infuriated George Washington who so much wanted that job for himself that he organized a political conspiracy against his perceived rival and had the equally famous or infamous, take your pick, codicil to the Constitution inserted which emphatically stated that no one except someone born in the United States of America could become its President. For George quite understandable you might say but laughably unnecessary, since this targeted Barbadian who was exceedingly rich wasn’t in the least interested in having the job and moreover with his huge plantations and other business interests was quite happy to stay Barbadian and British; pragmatically taking the stance of I don’t mind helping you guys win your independence, nevertheless I’m quite happy as I am.

The Constitution of the United States of America was printed by a Barbadian publisher; the first Jews to settle in the United States were wealthy Barbadians who’d made their money on the island from the lucrative sugar industry, and the oldest synagogue in the so-called New World and a UN heritage site is in Bridgetown, Barbados’ capital. And how many Brits or foreign visitors to Lord Nelson’s Statue and Trafalgar Square in London know that these are replicas of those located in Barbados? The first ever Lord Nelson Statue and Trafalgar Square, the second is in Bermuda that followed Barbados’ lead, London’s is the third of these erected some 50 years after the one in Barbados, were commissioned and paid for by Barbadians from all walks of life shortly after the Battle of Trafalgar and were erected on land bought by these people in Bridgetown opposite the House of Assembly, the Barbados parliament buildings where they’re still located, with one slight adjustment; after Barbados asked for and got its independence in 1966 the government and parliament decided to rename Trafalgar Square Independence Square. Nevertheless, the location of the statue and square is both symbolic and important to all Barbadians since their parliament, the second oldest and continuous one after the House of Commons in the former British Empire, now the Commonwealth, was created in 1639, a mere 12 years after the colony was itself established. And let’s not forget that Barbados was for a considerable time a principal and strategic location in the Americas, for it was there that the British West India Regiment that played such crucial roles in England’s and later the United Kingdom’s colonial conquests was based there at the Garrison which is now the home of the Barbados Defence Force, and its capital Bridgetown was a major port and an important economic and cultural centre prior to and for much longer than any of the now quite familiar US cities that are immediately recognizable were ever dreamt of let alone founded.

The Barbados National Archives located in Black Rock a quiet and rather picturesque suburb of Bridgetown is a customary stopping off point for many academics, writers, journalists and ordinary citizens from North America, elsewhere around the region and as far away as Europe who regularly descend on the island to research not only their countries’ past history and their integral links with Barbados but also their own family histories and links to the island.

Proudly, Barbados boasts an excellent educational system that goes back to the founding of this once British Colony in 1627; the vast majority of the island’s grammar schools were set up in the 17th Century and are much older than many major states like Canada and the United States of America, the latter founded in 1776. The educational system which was initially introduced and used by the islanders was understandably British, but Barbados has innovatively and quite independently vastly improved on this and has evolved its own. The Barbados Scholarship that allowed academically bright students to study at very prestigious universities worldwide, in the past primarily in the UK but no longer so because of the evident, deplorable dumbing down of the educational system there, goes back too to the founding of the colony where education was always a priority and still is today, literacy are rates high and continue to remain so. Barbados today stands proudly, along with a very small elite band of other countries, as having a 100% literacy, a state of affairs that is verified by UNICEF. In its annual report on The State of the World’s Children in 2004, UNICEF stated that at the turn of the century in the year 2000, the adult female and male literacy rates in Barbados were 100 percent. It went on further to state that few countries in the world, and that includes the UK and the United States, have attained Barbados’ educational profile; and the only countries which matched Barbados were Eastern European states such as the Ukraine, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, Belarus, Estonia and Lithuania.

Most Barbadian students, of both sexes, go into tertiary and higher graduate education and the island of Barbados has a an overabundance of university graduates of both sexes many of these with postgraduate qualifications that are in great demand at home and abroad, and it’s not at all unusual to see recruiting teams from the so-called developed countries, particularly the United States, descending on the island to poach its graduates. Education on the island is universal and free at all stages from kindergarten to university postgraduate level; and health care is likewise free and universal through the National Health Service to all Bajan citizens and residents from the point of entry right through to death. Women have always played a major and constructive role in Barbadian society; this is massively reflected in Barbados’ political, economic and civic life. Many of Barbados’ senior diplomats and prominent politicians are women, and Barbados was the first country ever to appoint a female ambassador to the United Nations and who also sat on the UN Security Council. She’s the late Dame Anita Barrow who later became Governor General of Barbados and was the sister of another renowned Barbadian figure Errol Barrow: a distinguished academic who studied at the prestigious LSE in London; a wartime RAF fighter pilot seconded as personal pilot to Winston Churchill; outstanding barrister having been called to the bar in England; founder of the Barbados Democratic Labour Party; Prime Minister, and the father of Barbados’ independence, who among his many achievements for the islanders of Barbados introduced free and universal secondary education – previously this had to be paid for, as well as free, universal health care for all Bajan citizens and residents.

Finally on the topic of Barbados, among a litany of other prominent achievements Barbados is well renowned for its plethora of world famous cricketers, among them the celebrated 3Ws of Clyde Walcott, the great-uncle of Theo Walcott of England and Arsenal football fame; Everton Weekes and Frank Worrell, each of them a knight of the realm, as is the legendary Sir Garfield Sobers; all of them knighted by Queen Elizabeth of England herself who is still constitutionally their monarch also, with Bajans overwhelmingly, even though they attained their independence in 1966, opting for her to stay in the role that each of her royal predecessors had occupied in an unbroken sequence since the founding, under Charles 1 in 1627, of this characteristically most English of colonies that never changed hands from being English until its independence. Then there’s Shirley Chisholm – born in the United States to Bajan parents but raised and educated in Barbados – who became the first female to be elected to the US Congress and also the very first woman to run for the presidency of her birth country the United States of America; and so the list goes on.

But in concluding this piece on Barbados, there are still a few things which you ought to know about this remarkable country. It’s not only the first country to have produced sugar from sugar cane; invented rum and molasses; and created the grapefruit, per populace the island has more centenarians than any other country in the world, and only Cuba, another Caribbean state with which it has always had close family and inter-island links, rivals it in this regard. Yes, there is no doubt that Barbados is a popular destination for upmarket tourists and its tourism goes back centuries to the day when rich Britons sailed out to what they fondly dubbed as Little England to willingly avail themselves of the island’s legendary, excellent climate. Nothing has changed since then except that they fly there now; people like film director Michael Winner; pops stars Cliff Richard, Mick Jagger, Eddie Grant who actually lives there permanently, Cilla Black and other international celebrities like Tiger Woods, not forgetting infamous politicians like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who either have luxurious homes on the island or use those of friends that have. Among other notable Bajan exports is Sir Richard Stoute one of Britain’s principal horse trainers whose expertise is readily made use of by no less a personage than the Queen herself; and staying in England with its passion for football the English premier league would be much the poorer without the invaluable contribution, past and present, made by the biological sons of Barbados.

A great pity therefore that this renegade son of Barbados who’ve I’ve lambasted on these pages and justifiably so I feel, didn’t bother to check out any of this before he opened his mouth. But there’s nothing whatsoever, except perhaps prejudice, stopping you the reader from doing your personal checks. Google any of these topics or preferably all of them if you care to: The Treaty of Oistins; Barbados’ links with the American colonies; Barbados links with the United States; The West India Regiment; Barbados’ Jews; The earliest Jewish settlement in Barbados; George Washington in Barbados; Rabbi Marc Lee Raphael on Jews in the Slave Trade; The Barbadian Society of Gentlemen Adventurers (those who founded the colony of Carolina in 1649); Irish and Scottish links with Barbados; Cardington College (the first and oldest tertiary educational establishment in the New World, set up in Barbados; still there and now an integral part of the University of the West Indies; Slavery and Economy in Barbados; and finally, British History: Empire and Sea Power. These constitute just a tiny fraction of what’s out there if you use your imagination and initiative to research what I have given you and look for the rest which would further enlighten you. So good luck! And don’t ever fall into the age-old trap that because it’s not taught in British, American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or even European schools that it doesn’t exit – very much like the forbearers of these same people arrogantly claiming to have discovered the so-called New World when there were literally millions of people already living there, had done so for millennia, and were fully au fait with these places; and therefore on that rather warped basis the only history there is, or is worth knowing about is a white one.

Not unlike the utterly confused Barbadian I previously wrote about many and perhaps all of the west’s leaders have their own demons to deal with. In Europe’s case it’s the lingering legacy of the European holocaust compounded with latent and virulent anti-Jewish sentiments, and that’s why these European leaders exaggeratedly go to such great lengths to demonstrate their Jewish solidarity; which essentially is quite fraudulent. They’re ardent Zionists and are quite happy to have Zionism conflated with Jewishness and to cynically use the patently emotive backdrop of the holocaust for their own selfish ends in the same way they’re equally prepared to hijack the popular revolutions in North Africa for the same reasons, that would never have been required in the first place had it not been for their inexorable support right up to the very last minute for these ousted dictators that were repressing these same people.

In Barack Obama’s case his demons relate to his father and the circumstances of his own birth. Born to a black African father and white American, Caucasian female in Hawaii, this union of his parents, had it taken place in mainland USA instead of in Hawaii a virtual colony as it then was of that country, Mrs Obama would have been charged under the United States’ immorality and race laws and sent to jail while her husband, Obama’s father, would have been arrested on statutory rape charges for marrying and being in an illegal union a white woman, found guilty and sentenced to death and executed. Having seen his father a veteran of World War 2 who’d fought for Britain, like several thousands of Kenyans and other Africans had voluntarily done in that campaign, tortured and humiliated by the likes of Ian Henderson now doing the same in Bahrain, for asking that their country be given back to them by Britain which had stolen it and Kenyans be allowed to rule themselves, Obama senior, having been humiliated by the British himself and having now emigrated to the explicitly racist United States to study wasn’t in any mood, a situation not dissimilar from that faced by many sensible black men who chose white wives, to countenance racism in any shape or its guises, hence the breakdown of his marriage. And President Barack Obama is like many similar mixed race kids that sadly find themselves caught up in the dilemma he subsequently found himself in, brought up by a white and usually disgruntled mother herself enmeshed in the baggage of her marriage, whose biological family tolerated at best her choice of husband but frequently were implacably antagonistic towards it, and all this compounded by an absent father that mentally for the younger Obama collectively triggered a tsunami of complex and unresolved emotions made considerably worse when as a young man having decided to seek out and get to know his father, dad was unfortunately dead. So the nagging issues going right back to his birth, childhood and one-parent upbringing still remain largely unresolved; the demons are still there and accounts for the noticeable fact that while every previous US president was more than happy to loudly trumpet his roots, however nebulous these might be with certain European countries, Ireland is a case in point, and make a point of going either on private or state visits to them while in office to reconnect these family links, President Barack Obama in marked contrast conspicuously avoids his father’s birthplace Kenya, as he would the Black Death.

Unfortunately it has shown up major personality flaws in this White House warmonger that not since the Roman emperor Caligula created his horse a senator were as conspicuously evident as when Barack was risibly ennobled as a Nobel Peace Price laureate, not least because he is like all warmongers a craven coward who worryingly for the genuine international community of ordinary men and women around the world, not that mendacious, feral bunch of US-led bully boys that grandiloquently confers on itself that title, is firmly under the thumb of the CIA that discourteously (ask yourself why?) for a President of the United States of America, that is the world’s principal economic and military global power, only tells him what it cares to and that he readily and unquestioningly it seems accepts.

President Truman was prudently warned in the 1940s not to have anything to do with what was graphically described to him back then as enclaves of savage fanatics in the Middle East region who would consistently seek to drag the United States into costly wars that financially it could not afford and which politically, in terms of its international standing in the world and national prestige at home, weren’t beneficial either to the domestic or global interests of the country or its citizens, and which would only serve the narrow and demented purposes of the vicious and savage cry-babies that instigated them. Truman didn’t listen, nor have successive United States presidents for that matter done so; so the warring has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The United States is spending over $200 million dollars a day that it can ill afford, bearing in mind the dire economic circumstances that prevail in that country, fighting in what at best is a civil war in Libya, actions that violate the Charter of the UN; and the disparate groups that it, the UK and France, the latter two incorrigible colonialists and imperialists, are backing are essentially and widely believed to be western implants trained by western special forces and those of Mossad and financed by the United States, Britain and France; the real purpose being to put in place a new batch of acquiescent cats paws favourable to the west, who would protect the latter’s oil and gas interests in Libya, even if that means breaking up the country as has happened in Sudan and is on the cards for Iraq given time, and that will facilitate the US in particular and its western allies, notably Britain and France, in managing the outcome of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, ensure the continuation of Zionist, apartheid Israel and ably assist in the retention and consolidation of America’s hegemony over the Middle East and in North Africa.

Ask yourself truthfully, how could it possibly be that right out of the blue there is suddenly all these armed revolutionaries running around in Libya who are completely different in character and even in their numbers from their supposed counterparts in Egypt and Tunisia that the world witnessed were completely unarmed and peaceful gatherings as they were and continue to be in Bahrain, Yemen and Jordan, emerging literally overnight from scratch and after years of harsh Gaddafi control that uncompromisingly stifled all dissent to his regime, and furthermore did so most effectively? How could they have done any of the things that they’re now doing or even exist without training and arms from outside of Libya? And crucially, cui bono? Who benefits? Unquestionably it’s the US, France and Britain that are providing them with the means to carry out their insurrection, for make no bones about it that’s what it actually is against Libya; and as a sovereign, independent state Libya in self-defence and under international law has the lawful right to hit back and seek to defeat these people.

Furthermore, UN Resolution 1973 which sanctions a no-fly zone over Libya also prohibits the arming of either side in this, supposedly again, domestic conflict; but despite all the nauseous and stomach churning sanctimony that we hear ad nauseum from the United States and two of the other criminal entities, France and the United Kingdom, that manifestly are deeply involved in this clandestine illegality, the simple fact is they’re all dishonestly and illegally flouting the same UN Resolution they obsessively pushed for in the Security Council and then steamrolled everyone there into giving to them. Proof positive that the attitude of these feral states is really aggressive, lumpen and boorish but nobody wants to talk about that.

It will all come to grief of course, because the principal protagonist in this adept sleight of hand deception, the American Empire whose temperament regularly translates itself into a pervasive demeanour that is extremely and insatiably suspect to the entreatingly persuasive but insincere blandishments of calculating and quite unprincipled manipulators, seems to have learnt nothing from the past predicaments of the British and French who forced to divest themselves, often in violent confrontations, of vast and exceedingly profitable empires pathetically and delusionally continue to deceive themselves that they’re still individually a major force to be reckoned with, and like the punch drunk boxers they’re analogous to don’t know when to quit boxing and get safely out of the ring.

But Barack isn’t the only one with issues that best him and for which he can’t or is unwilling to find answers. Many in his administration and the wider political sphere of the United Stales are in similar dire straits. America for them is the White Knight capable of doing anything it wants or feels like. What these people don’t realize is that somebody has shot the horse. Furthermore that you either believe in human rights or you don’t; and if you do, you do so regardless of who is violating them or who the victims are; and human rights shouldn’t be selective. That the UN Security Council’s permanent members wielding vetoes in the bargain are the world’s leading arms dealers who support human rights only when the countries concerned don’t have the guts to or are unwilling to stand up for their own human rights. That the United States is a country very much haunted by its own human rights record clinging on dishonestly to the notion that people with the most power and capacity to do harm should have immunity while those least able to do so shouldn’t; hence the rank double standards and conspicuous hypocrisy over the ICC, and Israel’s continuing and premeditated massacres in Gaza.

This article is written therefore as a stark reminder that without constant vigilance to perceive and the undaunted courage and determination to stand up to, confront and resolutely face down the mendacious and extremely dangerous actions of tyrants whoever and wherever they are, we will inevitably descend once more into the eviscerating barbarity that imploded in Europe and consumed the rest of the world in its consequences between 1933 and 1945. Federich Haedel who was German, had never been to Africa, or had ever met or even known anyone who was African, nevertheless felt absolutely confident enough in 1831 to publicly express this opinion of all Africans: “This is the land where men are children, a land lying beyond the daylight of self-consciousness, history and [is] enveloped in the black colour of night. At this point let us forget Africa not to mention it again; for Africa is no historical part of the world.” Vocalized like the true imperialist and colonialist that he was and whose ilk unfortunately still afflict us today in the capitals of London, Paris, Rome, Ottawa, Madrid, Berlin, Copenhagen, Brussels, Oslo and most ironically Washington DC.

The black Roman, Terentius Afer (190-159 BC) who prominently distinguished himself in the field of literature and as a playwright and whose scholarly compositions Julius Caesar, Horace and Cicero used as models and additionally became the standard work for all the schools at the time saw things quite differently, when he authored these words: “Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.” (Translated it reads, I am a man and nothing human is alien to me).

These words are as germane in the context of contemporary world events as when they were first formulated and ought to be compulsory familiarization for every military adventurist from Europe, North America, the rest of the so-called west, and their bevy of ingratiating, venal and self-serving tin pot dictators globally, as well as the UN Security Council that shamelessly and habitually turns a Nelsonian eye to what these people are doing and even sanctions their illegal activities; but I doubt, given who sit on it in a permanent capacity and without root and branch reform of the whole edifice of the United Nations itself, whether the UN Security Council will ever be a meaningful force for promoting and overseeing good governance in the world or be willing to exercise itself with morally testing notions like these.

Please also see companion articles: Nicolas Sarkozy’s Megalomania – Vichy France Revisited – AND – Giants among Pygmies.

No comments:

Post a Comment