Wednesday, 6 July 2016

The Chilcot Report is out will Tony Blair face any real punishment?

The Chilcot Report is out will Tony Blair face any real punishment?


By Dark Politricks
www.darkpolitricks.com

Now the Chilcot report is out, does this mean that the Tory Government have the balls to go and arrest Tony Blair for pushing the illegal Iraq war?

Here was someone who knew that the evidence was false yet still promised George W Bush to be with him whatever, despite the UN and his own legal advisers, saying that the war was illegal.

Just like the many EU referendums before BREXIT, it was "no that's the wrong answer, go and find the right one", until a dodgy legal basis was provided to give Blair cover for his actions by Lord Goldsmith. I wonder how and why he got given his title....

I doubt any Tories will do anything to put their establishment buddy Blair's head in the block as it would mean putting their own heads in as well. Many of them eagerly went along with the falsehood that many in the world knew was a blatant lie.

It does however make sense why the Blairite push for power against their Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was planned just before this week's revelations.

They were hoping to take the sting out of the massive news story it will surely become, their own names off the front pages, and provide a different headline for the newspapers. However we must ensure that #Chilcot stays in the news and social media despite other political manoeuvrings.

If we have to wait for the Blairites to return to the Labour fold and for Corbyn to get elected before seeing Blair in the Hague then we could be waiting a long time. However hopefully a massive class action case by the families of dead UK soldiers, and maybe millions of Iraqi's hurt by the war, could be formed to take him to civil court instead.

Hopefully they could win and sting Blair with a massive monetary punishment as OJ Simpson was, to take away all the millions he has made since leading the country into Iraq by selling speeches, and pretending to be a "Peace Envoy". All whilst making money for himself in the Middle East advising dictators and lobbying the UN to vote against Palestinian statehood in 2011 - on the payroll of the Israelis no doubt.

The Palestinians had this to say about Tony Blair:

There is no one within the Palestinian leadership that supports or likes or trusts Tony Blair, particularly because of the very damaging role he played during our UN bid.

He is considered persona non grata in Palestine. Although we can't prevent him from coming here, we can hopefully minimise the role he can play because he is not a mediator, he is totally biased on one side.
So what were the main findings of the Chilcot report which we have had to wait 7 years for?

  • There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein; The strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time; The majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring.
  • The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
  • On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him "whatever". But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process; UN authority; and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders.
  • Judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - known as WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
  • Intelligence had "not established beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
  • Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.
  • The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory".
  • The invasion began on 20 March 2003 but not until 13 March did then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advise there was on balance a secure legal basis for military action. Apart from No 10's response to his letter on 14 March, no formal record was made of that decision and the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear.
  • The UK's actions undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council: The UN's Charter puts responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government was claiming to act on behalf of the international community "to uphold the authority of the Security Council". But it knew it did not have a majority supporting its actions.
  • In Cabinet, there was little questioning of Lord Goldsmith about his advice and no substantive discussion of the legal issues recorded
  • Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas - including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support.
  • Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were "wholly inadequate".
  • The government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than one million were displaced.
  • The report sets out lessons to be learned: It found Mr Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK's relationship with the US does not require unconditional support.

So will anyone apart from Jeremy Corbyn whose whole party seems to have deserted him despite having overwhelming support from the Labour membership and Trade Unions do anything about the lies of Tony Blair that led us to war and the creation of ISIS which haunts us all now?

Despite the massacres, huge car bombs killing hundreds almost on a daily basis during the Iraq civil war, journalists getting their heads cut off by ISIS and al-Qaeda and the strengthening of Iran, Tony Blair still thinks he made the right decision. He said this in the report:
Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country
So no remorse then for the many people killed and injured from 2003 to this very day, all coming from his decision to back George W Bush who had some narcissistic desire to achieve what his father didn't in the earlier Gulf War, remove Saddam from power. This was despite any links to 9.11 or any evidence that he posed a threat to the region.

Saddam and Rumsfeld

This was a dictator that was supported by the USA during the 80's in it's war with Iran, and many in George W Bushes cabinet were players from that era such as Donald Rumsfeld who is seen here having a good time with his favoured dictator of the region.

I have no doubt that the USA believed Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction because they used to sell him so many of them, including the nerve gas which he used against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi rebels.

No complaint was made about it at the time of the event but when it came to the standard demonisation of the enemy before a war all this was put into the heads of the public to paint a horrible picture of their ex friend and enabled dictator.

Despite warnings by the CIA that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily Donald Rumsfeld who was at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, continued to make it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

This included biological weapons and viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague. Also during the time the US was selling Iraq chemical and biological weapons the UK under Maggie Thatcher was selling up to 78 different types of military equipment including Land Rovers, tank recovery vehicles, terrain-following radar and spare tank parts according to released government reports.

Apparently this pleased Maggie very much. She said she was "very pleased" with the "Contracts worth over £150m [that] have been concluded [with Iraq] in the last six months including one for £34m (for armoured recovery vehicles through Jordan)," which was written by a junior minister, Thomas Trenchard, in 1981.

This letter also stated that meetings with Saddam Hussein "represent a significant step forward in establishing a working relationship with Iraq which should produce both political and major commercial benefits”.

So not only did the UK and USA help stock up Saddam Hussein with all the WMD they then accused him of having, a very hypocritical move but to be expected by the two major powers in the axis of continual war, but we actually helped him use those weapons on Iranians.

Iran was finally brought to the negotiating table by providing Iraq the location of Iranian troops, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defences once they had learned that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage in the 8 year long war.

They were fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin and mustard gas prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence.

These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favour and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

So not only were we totally hypocritical when dealing with Saddam helping him use WMD that we sold him in the first place, but we started a war of aggression against his country that was not thought out, had no plans for after the invasion, spilled over into sectarian violence and civil war and the formation of terrorist groups where there were none before.

So how many dead people does Blair and Bush have on their hands from their decision to go to war "on faulty intelligence" or as normal people say "illegally"?

How many dead and injured victims have their been over the last 12+ years and the years prior...

-The US/ UN sanctions on Iraq of the 1990s, which interdicted chlorine for much of that decade and so made water purification impossible were responsible for over half a million deaths, mainly children.
-The Illegal war which Blair promised Bush to support even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it is thought to have killed at least half a million people.
-The depleted uranium weapons used in Fallujah that are still causing babies to be born without legs and arms and horrible birth defects.
-The long civil war came after the fall of Saddam between the Sunnis, Shia's and Kurds.
-The forming of al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 when no al-Qaeda terrorists had existed before.
-The forming of ISIS which is now fighting Iraqi, Kurdish, Syrian and Russian soldiers and inspiring terrorist attacks in the west. All whilst we do very little to stop them (and even support them) whilst allowing our ally Turkey to bomb the Kurds instead.
-And that's not even counting all the dead US/UK soldiers.
-And those who came home with missing limbs from IEDS and PTSD now living in poverty on the streets or in jail.

I wonder what the total death count is, or will ever be......

I also wonder if the world has the strength to punish a war criminal that wasn't on the losing side for once?

By Dark Politricks

View the original article on the main site www.darkpolitricks.com.



© 2016 By Dark Politricks

Monday, 16 May 2016

Some alternate views on the EU and whether we should leave or stay

Some alternate views on the EU and whether we should leave or stay


You have heard from the politicians, the Euro MPs, reporters and even had propaganda leaflets through your door from both the BREXIT and Better In Together sides of the EU Referendum debate.

Now I am bringing you some alternative views on the question.

So enough of the politicians lets listen to some alternative points of view. If you do like your #altnews, and don't rely purely on state news like the BBC or papers owned by people with their own reasons for wanting you to vote a certain way, then you should know this person.

David Shayler is an ex MI5 spy who was jailed after breaking the official secrets act and passing information about how we funded al-Qaeda liked LIFG terrorists to kill Col. Gaddafi but screwed it up and killed innocent civilians instead.

He was also passing info to the Daily Mail about how the security forces were scared of Labour MPS and spied on Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw and Harriet Harman. Once they had got into power under Blair it became apparent that this was true and that many Labour MP's were under the spotlight of the establishment.

This is why I suppose Blair was brought into the fold to make Labour an "establishment" party. Removing all traces of nationalisation, war mongering and following the USA's lead, and allow privatisation started under Thatcher to continue whilst creating the biggest police state in the western world.

We have the most CCTV cameras, lost our right to be silent under caution without judgement being made in court, lost the right to protest near Parliament as well as many other draconian laws which were brought in by the supposedly left leaning, people's party, Labour (or New Labour - Tory Lite).

Therefore he may have been attacked at the time for what he claimed, but when the British embassy was overrun in the aftermath of the attack on Tripoli by rebel forces, many documents were found that backed up his claims of MI6 collusion with al-Qaeda and even how we allowed certain rebel leaders to be tortured as we stood by and asked questions.

One of the main leaders of the rebels, Abdul Hakim Belhaj, even won the right to sue Jack Straw and the head of the MI6 over his kidnap and rendition due to this evidence coming to light.

Therefore don't knock what you don't know.

Sit back and listen.

You may not agree with some of the things he says but remember he was jailed for telling the truth before. Plus it is always good to get points of view from all sides whether you believe them or not.



View the original article on www.darkpolitricks.com

David Cameron is a "Con Man" over the BREXIT Debate

David Cameron is a "Con Man" over the BREXIT Debate

In a blistering attack on the PM the UKIP leader stuck the boot in as he urged voters to make a stand against Brussels. 

He may have had a few too many beers though!

Days after Mr Cameron continued his Project Fear by suggesting BREXIT could spark World War Three, Mr Farage ramped up the Leave campaign by mocking the PM.

He said: “My message is Dave you’re a conman, you’re a conman."



“You told us two months ago you might consider voting for BREXIT, now you tell us it could cause World War Three.

“If it’s that serious why would you ever take the risk in the first place.

“He is a cheap second-hand car salesman not to be believed and will finish up at the end of this utterly discredited and rightly so.”

The UKIP leader also took aim at Brussels bureaucrats and tore into EU regulations.

He said: “Do you think we should govern our own country, make our own laws, control our own borders and have our own Supreme Court or do you think it better we sub-contract out the running of our nation to a bunch of old men in Brussels we can’t vote for and we can’t remove?

"I know my answer. I want my country back, I want my borders back, I want my passport back, I want my pride and self-respect back.

“Don’t forget there are 5.2 million men and women in this country who run their own companies, act as sole traders, unpaid tax collectors for the Government.

What do you think is our PM a conman over his referendum over BREXIT. His magic agreement with the EU was supposed to stop us voting to leave but it is so watered down and not worth the paper it is written on no-one believes him anymore.

And here is Nigel Farage on why Big Business love BREXIT....



So how are you going to vote?

Have you voted on the BREXIT To Stay Or Leave blog yet?

Let us know your thoughts.

View the original article at brexit-to-leave-or-stay.blogspot.co.uk

Friday, 29 April 2016

Was Ken Livingstone MAD for defending Labour MP Naz Shah?

Was Ken Livingstone MAD for defending Labour MP Naz Shah?

By Dark Politricks

Most Zionists, Israel apologists and Christians who support Israel but know little about history don't want to admit that Ken Livingstone was unfairly kicked out of the Labour party for his defence of Labour MP Naz Shah, who had made comments before becoming an MP about Israel. Her crimes:

1. Stating that Israel should be relocated to the United States. This was actually debated about during the time before Israel's creation when a plan for Jews to settle the Sitka area in Alaska, the Slattery Report, was proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes in 1939. There have also been other plans throughout the years including:

The Uganda plan where it was actually debated about giving a portion of British East Africa to the Jewish people as a homeland.

In 1938, the USSR wanted to introduce a policy of areas within its state reflecting the culture of the people and they were going ahead with the formation of the Khabarovsk Territory or (JAR - Jewish Autonomous Region), for the Jewish people within this policy.

During the 1930's in Imperial Japan, there was a proposal to settle Jewish refugees escaping Nazi-occupied Europe in Japanese territories.

The Madagascar plan was a suggested policy of the Third Reich government of Nazi Germany, and previously discussed by the UK, France and Polish, to forcibly relocate the Jewish population of Europe to the island of Madagascar.

In March 1940, the issue of an alternative Jewish Homeland was raised and British Guiana (now Guyana) was discussed in this context. But the British Government decided that "the problem is at present too problematical to admit of the adoption of a definite policy and must be left for the decision of some future Government in years to come."

This is just one among many other plans for a Jewish homeland that have been previously discussed.

2. In July of 2014, she also wrote about a newspaper poll on alleged Israeli war crimes in the Gaza conflict, saying “the Jews are rallying to the poll”. She has also landed herself in hot water for comparing Israeli policies to those of Adolph Hitler on Facebook last September.

This is not exactly something only a few people have said. The treatment of the trapped people in their open prison of Gaza is just like the Jewish Ghetto's of old in which regular incursions would take place and people murdered.

The two recent wars in Gaza killed more women, kids and animals than they did Hamas fighters. It was admitted the IDF have a policy of killing innocents to try to turn them against their leaders. These are war crimes yet whenever a security resolution comes up in the UN it is vetoed by the USA however ethical it would be to punish Israel. They are like a tortured child who then goes on to torture other children.

Let's not forget the whole concept of the UN and International Law came about after WWII, the Nuremberg trials in which the UK, USA, France and USSR sat as judges and tried their victors justice against the Germans.

No trials were carried out for the Dresden or Tokyo fire-bombings or the nuclear bombings of Japan by the USA which killed millions.

However this new International law was supposed to be followed by all nations yet despite this, Israel has flagrantly broken it many time. The highest crime was starting wars of aggression on another country. How many times has Israel done this, how many times have the US with UK and French backing done this in recent years? International Law only applies to those we attack and defeat it seems.

Naz apologised for he comments in the House of Commons but was suspended for her actions.


Later though, ex London Mayor and Labour member, Ken Livingstone went onto TV to defend her giving a historical analysis which covers some of the points I have already mentioned but also talked about Hitler and how he had made a deal with the Zionists to get rid of the Jews to Palestine. If you don't know your history and believe it or not Ken DOES, then you should read up a bit more.

The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933.

The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany.

The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine. While it helped Jews emigrate, it forced them to temporarily give up possessions to Germany before departing. Those possessions could later be re-obtained by transferring them to Palestine as German export goods. The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement (such as the Revisionist Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky) and outside it.

For German Jews, the Agreement offered a way to leave an increasingly hostile environment in Nazi Germany; for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrants and some economic support; and for the Nazis it was seen as a way of breaking the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933, which had mass support among European Jews and was thought by the German state as a potential threat to a fragile German economy.

Here are some paper titles from the time of the Jewish anti Nazi boycott.

Jews declare war on Germany
Judea declare a BDS war on Germany

So when the Israelis attack the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) attacks on them they should remember that they did the same thing to Germany in the 30's.

This led to Hitler wanting to get rid of the Jews, preferably through immigration though many European countries and America refused to have them in big numbers. Therefore despite their being no "smoking gun" evidence of Hitler giving a command for the "final solution" many historians believe it was because he wanted the Jews out of Europe and not killed and that it was Himmler the head of the NAZI SS who took it on himself to run the extermination camps on the eastern borders where Jews were basically robbed and then killed.

Even David Irving the revisionist English historian who was jailed for his "anti-semitic" beliefs under draconian European laws which prevent any discussion of the holocaust. Now believes that although Auschwitz was plainly not an extermination camp as it was destroyed after the war and what you see now is the rebuilt version Stalin put up. He does admit that on the Eastern border a process of robbing and pillaging of Jewish goods was going on with the people exterminated at the end. Most likely in ditches by machine gun. Auschwitz may have killed some Jews, but the photos you see of piles of emaciated bodies are those who died at the end of the war in the typhoid breakouts.


Auschwitz have constantly altered the number of people who died at the camp downwards until it lies around a million.

However despite this downwards trend the 6 million number of Jews killed remains.

How and why I don't know. Even the Israeli's tried to create a log of all 6 million Jews killed in the war and couldn't manage to get anywhere near that figure. It seems the 6 million number is sacred and it even appeared in pre-WWII papers such as this claim from 1921.

6 million number was around before WWII

You can do a Google search and view the images of all the other mentions of the other papers mentioning this figure and the 6 million deaths that were coming to various Jewish communities.

We must also remember the word Holocaust means a "Burnt Offering". These are quite strange words to use for such a slaughter of such scale. Who was being burnt - Jews, so what was the offering for? Maybe it was for the land of Israel. As the famous Zionist Yitzhak Gruenbaum said during the war.
One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe.
and
I think it is necessary to state here – Zionism is above everything. I will not demand that the Jewish Agency allocate a sum of 300,000 or 100,000 pounds sterling to help European Jewry. And I think that whoever demands such things is performing an anti-Zionist act
Not exactly helpful to the Jews suffering in Europe at the time.

However when Ken Livingstone is getting called "Mad", a "loon" and a "liar", we must remember that there was some measure of collusion between the Nazi's and Jews in the German 1930's to get them out the country and to migrate to Palestine. This cannot be refuted by anyone with a semblance of knowledge of history I'm afraid.

 

You can watch Ken get attacked for being right here


So just remember, that just because you don't like to believe something it doesn't make it untrue.

One thing you should also know is that Israel is the ONLY country to have threatened the rest of the world with nuclear annihilation under their Samson Operation, named after the tale of Samson who pushed the temple down onto himself and all his enemies. It is basically a "well if we are going down, so is the rest of the world" policy which you can read about in full here.

I quote...
Some have written about the "Samson Option" as a retaliation strategy. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter which the American Jewish author Ron Rosenbaum writes "goes so far as to justify" a Samson Option approach:[26]

Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?[27]

Ron Rosenbaum writes in his 2012 book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III that, in his opinion, in the "aftermath of a second Holocaust", Israel could "bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)" as well as the "holy places of Islam." He writes that "abandonment of proportionality is the essence" of the Samson Option[dubious – discuss].

In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[29] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.
Not exactly a nice option to know about for all the Zionist supporters of Israel.

How would you feel if your family and your grand-kids families were OR could be wiped out due to our supposed ally and friend, Israel, and their own nuclear bombs?

View the original article at www.darkpolitricks.com

By Dark Politricks

© 2016 Dark Politricks

Monday, 28 March 2016

Will you vote to stay in the EU or leave it?

Will you vote to stay in the EU or leave it?

By Dark Politricks

As the debate rages around the UK on whether we should leave or stay in the EU. The question is are people really thinking for themselves or are they just believing all the crap that the daily rags tell them to?

We have owners of multiple papers who live offshore most of the year just to get out of paying their fair share of UK tax, telling us tax payers what to do. Is this really fair? It's just the rich elite who are always going to go from strength to strength as long as no-one stands up to them enforcing their will on the people as they always do.

Will people who vote actually make a real decision or will they be swayed like the US electorate always is to vote for the person with the biggest smile, angriest most bullish comments and plans to "restore America to greatness" as if it had suddenly become a third world country without the biggest economy and military in the world?

So the BREXIT referendum all rests on whether people believe the "deal" Cameron brought back was worth the paper it was written on or not.

To me Cameron's "Deal", is just a tinkering around the edges that prevents migrants from claiming benefits for years, and allows Britain to cap the number of people entering the country. It really doesn't make much of a difference at all.

We will still will be bound by the European Court of Human Rights, pay our monthly millions to be part of the EU, and whilst the Euro zone members make important financial decisions we will now be left out of them and probably still be asked to pay towards any bailouts such as those for Greece and Ireland etc.

I never got to vote to join the EC in the 70's.

That was the Economic Community, a joining together of countries for free trade without tariffs between members and a supposed opening up of the many countries nationalised utilities and businesses.

It was not a vote on whether we should join a European Super State, with its own Defence Force, a 3 tier decision-making system where the most democratic body, the European Parliament, has the least power.

People complain about the number of EU migrants that enter Southern Europe and are then just waved through multiple  counties until they reach Germany or Calais hoping to get to England. However we must remember that about 1.8m Britons live in Europe, with Spain boasting an expat population of just over 1m UK citizens.

Of the Britons living in Europe, 400,000 are claiming a state pension from the UK.

The question is, if free movement is good for us, what will happen when it is shut down. We may be able to control the number of migrants from the EU entering the country but what will happen to the retired wrinkled leather tanned grannies of the Costa Del Sol?

leather tanned grannies
An ex Pat, enjoying the Sun and beach

Will these ex pats all have to go through some sort of immigration test as if they were trying to get green cards in the US?

I cannot even imagine many Brits passing any part of a test that expected them to know the hosts language and culture.

It could be that we manage to make arrangements that doesn't affect Brits with jobs OR money from going out to live in the EU however I am guessing a lot of EU members are really pissed off with us at the moment for getting a "special membership deal".

Whilst Germany and France wanted to keep us in the EU for the risk that it might fall apart, I can well imagine many newer members are thinking, why does the UK always try to get it's own way?

From my perspective it would have been good if Cameron had reached a consensus with other members that would have reformed the EU properly.

You know basic things like make it truly democratic, removed any moves to keep pushing for a super state, restored it back to a trading block that was good for business without all the imported laws and of course stopped all the massive fraud which has prevented a real audit for many years now.

There are lots of things wrong with the EU and the constant push towards a superstate is one of them. One of the original ideas was to try and make a block of states that was an equal balance to the power of the US but instead we have just turned into the USA's cross pond bitch.

So I believe Cameron's almost Chamberlain like "Peace in our time", excitement at having got his deal, is going to bite him in the butt just as Chamberlain found out when the NAZI's ignored his magic bit of paper and rolled across Europe.

This is small fry being pumped with steroids to make it seem like a massive change in our relationship with the EU. In reality it is some small changes around the edges.

If ever someone had made a worthless deal and wanted to sell it to the public as if it was a magic exemption from all the EU's meddling in our lives, like the EU Human Rights Law that protects us from this Police State country over reaching in its step, then this is it.

When I was younger I liked being able to hop on a plane and just go to Spain to live. I had no job but that didn't matter, free movement of people and workers meant we could all go where we wanted when we wanted without border checks, citizenship tests and green cards.

For those who have never lived abroad and have only gone to Ibiza on your holiday or maybe a trip to Paris on Valentines day then you won't really think about the difference between a holiday and actually being able to pick up your bags and literally run off to any part of Europe with no questions asked.

However whilst Spain has always been the old stereotyped destination for our UK retirees it seems over recent year the US, Australia and the rest of the world have overtaken Europe for the primary destination for those with one foot in the grave.

The top 10 destinations for Britons to retire to are now:
  • Channel Islands: 73,030
  • Germany: 96,938
  • France: 172,806
  • Ireland: 253,605
  • South Africa: 305,660
  • New Zealand: 313,850
  • Spain: 381,025
  • Canada: 674,371
  • United States of America: 758,919
  • Australia: 1,277,474
So maybe the modern "cultured" Brit is changing their retirement plans and thinking a bit more further than the Costa Del Crime nowadays.

Spain has always been our number one destination for holidays and retirees. A place where you can enjoy the 40° heat and drink British beer in pubs frequented by famous English gangsters on the run.

So many famous British gangsters have been out to the Costa Del Sol no wonder we call it the Costa Del Crime.

However it seems we are looking wider than Med for our retirement plans - that's if we get any pension money. I doubt I will ever see any from the thousands I have put into the system over my working career. It seems the Tories want us to work until our 80's and the age is constantly being pushed upwards.

There have been rumblings from Tory think tanks for years now from people already on hundreds of thousands of pounds a month pensions who believe we should do voluntary work in our retirement to collect our hard earned pension.

Leaving the EU won't stop any evil Tory plans from coming to fruition and if we want a REAL CHANGE in our democracy and the way we act in the world we should be thinking about NATO. 

What would we do if Turkey start a war with Russia over Syria, we would be forced to fight on their side whether they started the war by deception or not. I am more worried about World War III happening due to duplicitous NATO allies at the moment than the amount of money we pay in and get back in rebates from the EU.

We should also be thinking about how the Tories have tripled our national debt in the years they were supposedly "fixing the roof whilst the sun was shining", and supposedly cutting the ever so important deficit. The deficit may have dropped but the total amount of debt has increased hugely due to the Tories thinking that the poorer we all are, the more money we will spend.

They have failed us. In Europe, on the world stage and most importantly at home.

Austerity hasn't worked at all and the national debt has ballooned because of the Tories core voters (the grey brigade), will vote against anyone who dares to cut their pensions.

These take up a vast proportion of the social security budget and will undoubtedly be ignored whist the disabled and poor are forced to suffer through the bedroom tax, universal credit, and the severe lack of social housing we have in this country.

Europe has no control over these areas of our lives and if we want to sort out our country we really need to get rid of the failed Tories and try their method of printing money, not at 0% interest rates so the Banksters can lend it to us through companies like WONGA at 5,853% APR, but to invest in infrastructure, building new homes and putting people through education. If we can do it for the banks why can't we do it for the people?

Remember we were in a much worse off state in the years after WWII. We only just finished off paying our debt to the US a few years ago under Gordon Brown.

Despite that we still created the NHS, cleared the slums of London and built thousands of new houses and multiple new towns for the people moved out of London. Plus we ushered in an age of economic prosperity that latest decades.

It is only short-sighted Tory thinking that keeps us in the current trap we are in. One where bankers must be bailed out even though they should be in jail, and the poor are paying off the national debt, despite having no money.

If only we would just wipe any national debt on citizens like Iceland did to many mortgage holders that were linked to inflation. It sounds crazy but would put money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it, plus create a huge demand for goods and a rise in GDP.

Having a "National Bank" that can print money as long as it's for investment in houses and jobs could give us full employment, cheaper rent and accommodation costs and more money in the pocket to spend to increase GDP.

At the moment our whole economy, just like it was during Labours time in office, is built on the house of cards made from debt. People remortgaging houses or taking out loans to spend on goods. An unsustainable recovery. Screw the bankers who say it cannot be done. We did it for you, why can't we do it to actually help rebuild our country?

So the question is, are people going to think with their heads or their hearts about this exit from the EU.

A lot has changed with the European project to stop a further European war after WWII, with France and Germany the two main actors in this union coming together to ensure that the rest of Europe sticks together and shows "solidarity".

From stopping a war to free trade agreements and a central bank. Then a EU flag, courts and parliament. Then laws enforced on us which we don't want. All whilst we pay billions to be part of a club that's money could be better spent on hospitals and schools. That is one argument for leaving.

The problem is that war fades in people's minds, especially those who never fought in WWII or who had family who did.

"What does the EU have to do with WWII" many people will ask.

Now that the EU project is more about creating a super state, it spies on us and hands over all bank transactions to the US as well as traces of our Internet history and anything else the NSA overlords demand. However even if we leave the EU I guess due to our "special relationship", with the US, we would still carry on letting our GCHQ be the NSA's bitch, so nothing would change on the police state front.

Also whilst we may collaborate as a big trading block to face China, the BRICS and North American trading blocks, can the BREXIT crew really convince us that on an economic scale we would really be better outside this trading block.

Selling tea to India, ornaments to Russia and other small manufactured products across the world is the BREXIT plan. We don't build big things anymore. Our ship building industry is almost gone and we have offshored so many jobs that actually make things, you know jobs good for all those skilled manual workers we are trying to find jobs for, that we are just a service economy. Selling ideas, concepts and of course bank trickery.

If we leave the EU will we survive without the cheap gas and electricity we import from the EU, or will we get extra tariffs put on them putting us even further into debt. The French/Chinese nuclear power stations that were supposed to be on their way have only just been signed off.

It will take another 20 years at least until we see these new power stations so we will be relying on our dwindling North Sea Oil stocks and imports seeing that we never really bothered investing in green energy.

This is despite being an island surrounded by multiple ways of making energy from natural sources such as the sea, wind and sun. We have loads of places to put under sea turbines that use wave power and windmills off shore to take in their blustery winds. We really never tried as we suffered from a  "not in my back garden" mentality, whenever a wind farm was proposed to be build anyway near a house.

So will people even consider the financial terms of leaving or will they think what the Sun, Daily Mail and other trash papers tell them to think?

The EU is a debt ridden collection of states that turned the thumb screws on Greece, Italy and Spain all so that they could enforce austerity, increase taxes and pay back Goldman Sachs and that other evil trio, the European Bank, IMF and World Bank.

Do we want to live in a place that see's solidarity between nations as one that involves throwing the poor to the dogs so that their rich Banksters who caused the mess can be fully compensated. Plus solidarity is not where Germany gets to bend the rules but smaller states can't lest they risk German austerity plans as the cost of remaining in the Euro.

This financial crisis that has still not been solved since 2008 is just waiting for another explosion. When it comes it will make 2008 look like a picnic.

Will the UK, the hub of banksters from the terrorist supporting, Mexican drug dealing, al-Qaeda funding HSBC to the corrupt Barclay's brothers, really be better inside or out when the next economic explosion occurs.

As the City of London is basically it's own country within a country, where the leaders of the companies and banks get to sit on their special council and can "command" the Chancellor to appear before them, they will probably see no difference in their money making schemes whether we leave or stay.

To me it all depends on who is in charge.

The Tories seem to want to put the strain of any recovery on the backs of the working class whilst rewarding their rich friends.

Their recent budget removed £30 from the disabled people of our country that gave them support to get dressed and move about and instead they have given the richest more tax breaks. It is clear where their priorities lie. Voting Tory is like voting for a gang rape on yourself. Why people do it I have no idea.

On the other hand Labour, SNP, the Greens and Lib Dems feel that a more even policy that involves banksters going to jail and splitting up the banks between Casinos and Savings is called for.

On top of that more measures that don't punish the poor but instead help them climb up the ladder whilst the rich who have become more wealthy in the last 5+ years are made to contribute their fair share.

Whether they will actually stick to their words is a totally different matter. We just have to look at the Lib Dems when they got their taste of power to see how power corrupts and good promises become faded memories.

So what will make you vote yes or no when the time comes?

EU Democracy or the lack of it?

The prospect of war?

Finance and austerity?

Migration?

Not being held to account to the European Convention of Human Rights (an act the Tories wrote after WWII to show how civilised we are)

Or something else?

Let me know.

View the original article at www.darkolitricks.com.

By Dark Politricks

 

 

© 2016 By Dark Politricks

Monday, 8 February 2016

How the CIA is deeply involved in drug dealing

How the CIA is deeply involved in drug dealing

www.darkpolitricks.com By Dark Politricks

Apparently this video is an attempt to warn kids off drugs. It's a Romanian anti-drugs campaign that makes out that when you're high, everyone, and everything, is a fit babe wanting to get it on with you.

Only if you are not stoned do you get the brush off. In that case I reckon a lot of kids will be toking after watching this video.



Now whenever your government tries to warn you from taking drugs you have to realise how totally hypocritical this is.

Historical fact, real reporting, basic statistics and admissions from people involved in the drug game has shown that Western Governments from the US to UK and many others, have been deeply involved in drug dealing for many years.

From the Opium wars between the British Empire and China, when China wanted to put an end to the epidemic of addicts related to Britain's importation of the drug hundreds of years ago, something Chinese students are still taught about, to the history of the CIA and their drug dealing activities to fund covert operations. It still goes on to this day.

If you want to read a detailed 4 part report on how the CIA (Cocaine Importation Agency) have been dealing in coke, and Heroin for years now, this is part 1 of the article. It even has an interview with a Burmese man who used to be the biggest heroin dealer in the world. A reporter managed to get an interview with him and he apparently claimed that the CIA were his best customers!

The series covers everything from World War II and the creation of the agency to Air America, Barry Seal, Mena Airport, The Contra's, Pablo Escobar and the CIA dumping LA into the midst of a crack epidemic.

The Los Angeles black community attempted to sue the US government once a journalist (now dead of course), broke the story about the CIA protecting Freeway Rick Ross from the LA cops so that he could sell their crack, only for it to be thrown out of court on the grounds of National Security. Yes CIA drug dealing is National Security it seems. You can watch an interview with him below.



The journalist who broke the story, Gary Webb, was found shot dead with 2 gun shots to his head. Guess what it was ruled a suicide. It seems a lot of people involved in uncovering devious exploits by the powers that be are found to commit suicide this way.

They have to get their money for their black ops from somewhere and we don't want Congress or anyone sticking their nose into their dodgy dealings do we?

Therefore the CIA have found the perfect way to fund their "off book activities" with drug dealing it seems. Also they seem very keen to protect their sources and bump them off when they become no longer any use to them.

If you think Barry Seal was shot for ratting out the head of the Medellin Cartel, Pablo Escobar, then think again. This is a video about the famous CIA pilot who used to bring guns down to the Nicaraguan rebels for Ronald Reagan and Col. Oliver North, and drugs back up to the states for the CIA to sell.

Not only was he shot on the same night as Pablo's second in command but other cartel members were also killed on the same night. It doesn't exactly seem like a revenge killing by the cartel when members are being killed all over the place.

It seems more like some CIA "house cleaning". I'll let MadCowProd's Daniel Hopsicker explain it to you along with the new cover up "Mena" movie, starring Tom Cruise, all about Barry Seal's life.



The four part series on CIA drug smuggling should probably be updated to include the recent explosion of Mexican cartels.

Mexico used to be just a transit point from South America but is now a top level narco state where the Government, Police and Army are indistinguishable from the head chopping cartel members.

When the top bosses of certain cartels manage to escape from maximum security prisons like El Chapo, head of the Sinaloa Cartel, who has managed to break out of two maximum security prisons twice now. You have to ask how come he wasn't extradited to the USA like so many drug importers of the past?



It does seem odd how some Mexican and Columbian cartel heads get extradited to the US to spend the rest of their lives in shackles in maximum security prisons whereas others get a chance to spend their time in their homeland where even maximum security jails can be broken out of easily.

I am reminded of the Netflix series Narcos where even Pablo Escobar got to design and build his own prison until he got tired of the parties and prostitutes and went on the run.

So either El Chapo is protected by the CIA/DEA for informing on other cartels or he has far too much information to spill that would embarrass the USA and Mexican authorities. I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up in a Sicario film ending sometime soon.

We all know after the Fast and Furious debacle that the DEA allow certain cartels to keep control of areas in Mexico as long as they don't start a bloodbath with other gangs.

A top Mexican newspaper, El Universal, concluded that the DEA entered into agreements going back to 2000 and continuing through to 2012 with Mexico’s largest drug trafficking gang, the Sinaloa Cartel. Yes the one that expert prison breaker El Chapo is head of. I wonder if the DEA helped him escape or just intervened to prevent his extradition to the US where escape would have been impossible?

According to Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, a highly placed member of the Sinaloa cartel and the son of top Sinaloa leader Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, the deal involved the cartel providing information about rival Mexican drug gangs to the DEA in exchange for the U.S. government agreeing not to interfere with Sinaloa shipments into the United States and the dismissal of criminal charges against cartel participants.

This seems to fit with the hypothesis about letting El Chapo remain in Mexico where he could escape from any prison he wanted to. It seems very likely therefore that he is indeed involved with the DEA and other US agencies in some way or another.

So when your government tells you to "Just Say No", just remember that they "Just Say Yes", to all the money they can make from bringing in Heroin from Afghanistan on NATO planes and Cocaine from South America.

When "ex" CIA planes are found in the jungle with tons of of coke on board then you have to wonder whether they were really decommissioned and sold to drug dealers or just kept on as black op planes all along.

CIA plane found crashed with 3.7 tons of Cocaine in Mexican jungle
A CIA plane found crashed with millions of dollars of Cocaine on board within the Mexican jungle

This plane was a Florida based Gulfstream II jet aircraft that crash landed on September 24, 2007 after it ran out of fuel over Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula.

It had 3.7 tons of Cocaine on board and documents have revealed links between this Cocaine Smuggling Gulfstream II jet aircraft # N987SA and the CIA, who used it on at least 3 rendition flights from Europe and the USA, to bring inmates to Guantanamo's torture chambers in the early 2000's.

Strangely the planes drug cargo shrunk from a first reported 6 Tons of Cocaine as well as one ton of pure Heroin to a later reduced figure of only 3.3 tons of Cocaine. I wonder where all this missing Coke and Smack went?

Here is a video that goes into some detail about the plane crash and it's links to the DEA and CIA.



Then there is the more recent narco state and war in Afghanistan. Don't be fooled by claims from our ex PM, Tony Blair, that we went to war in Afghanistan to stop the opium production spiralling out of control.

If anything we went to war to keep it going as the Taliban had managed to reduce it to almost zero. Then we went into the country and BOOM, the harvest size increased year by year.

Not only do 92% of the countries population not even know what 9.11 was - surprising seeing it was the event that caused the devastation of their country - but since the CIA took the Taliban out of power the Opium crop has just grown and grown.

Opium production from 1994 to 2014

As you can see from the graph in 2001 when the Taliban ruled the country they actually banned the production of Opium as un-Islamic and its harvest dropped to hardly anything. Also after 9.11 and the invasion of the country the opium production spiked once again and has increased year after year thereon.

Remember this was the drug that the CIA had increased production of, during the 80's, when Russian had invaded the country. The aim was to both demoralise the Soviet troops as well as pay for the training and arming of what was to become al-Qaeda, the then called Mujahideen.
Because the US wanted to supply the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan with stinger missiles and other military hardware it needed the full cooperation of Pakistan. By the mid-1980s, the CIA operation in Islamabad was one of the largest US intelligence stations in the World. `If BCCI is such an embarrassment to the US that forthright investigations are not being pursued it has a lot to do with the blind eye the US turned to the heroin trafficking in Pakistan’, said a US intelligence officer. (“The Dirtiest Bank of All,” Time, July 29, 1991, p. 22.)

The Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world’s top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979 to 1.2 million by 1985, a much steeper rise than in any other nation.

CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests.

Source - The Spoils of War
Another side effect of the CIA's support of the Islamic Mujahideen to fight the USSR was that they created al-Qaeda. Here is ex UK foreign minister Robin Cook admitting that the USA and the CIA created al-Qaeda (or "the Database") of jihadists that the Americans used to fight the Russians during that war, and then afterwards as many claim, were used to de-stabilise areas that the US wanted to control (e.g Gladio 2).

Also if anyone has forgotten, the most gagged woman in US history, FBI agent, Sibel Edmonds, claimed after 9-11 that bin-Laden had maintained very close links with the CIA right up until the attacks in the US.

So not only does Afghanistan now produce over 92% of all opium in the world, but they no longer just export it to be turned into heroin in other countries, they now make the heroin inside their borders. It is then transported north to Russia, south to Pakistan and west to Iran, where it makes its way to Turkey and then Europe. That is if it isn't fast tracked on a NATO plane for special delivery.

So kids when your government tells you to "Just Say No" to drugs, just be aware that they are in fact controlling multiple countries production of the very drugs you consume.

On top of that they are pulling the strings of the major cartels and king pins who bring these drugs into your country.

Hypocritical - yes, surprising not at all.

By Dark Politricks

 
View the original article at www.darkpolitricks.com.

© 2015 By Dark Politricks

Friday, 18 December 2015

Why Their Is No Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

Why Their Is No Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

By Dark Politricks

No Difference between the GOP and Democrat
There is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats

I know that Conservatives in the US call Obama a Marxist and the Democrats attack the GOP as money grabbers for the rich, but in reality there is very little difference between the GOP and the Democrats.

From my perspective across the pond I haven't seen the US change for the better since all my years of being interested in US politics. This includes both Republican and Democratic Presidencies as well as times where the President was of the same party that controlled both houses of Congress yet still didn't push through policies you would expect them to.

Both the GOP and Democratic parties are:
  • Pro war, even if it means possible world war with Russia/China.
  • Pro Israel and pro AIPAC / JDL plus anti Palestinian rights.
  • Pro regime change (Iraq, Libya, Ukraine & Syria to name a few).
  • Pro drone strikes even on US citizens without judicial review.
  • Pro Bankster & Wall St and anti Working Class & main street.
  • Pro Police arbitrary killings. It feels as if the streets of some US cities are full of uninformed paramilitary death squads at the moment.
  • Pro NSA/FBI/CIA/Homeland security spying on you through your cars GPS, phones microphone/cameras, websites visited from your ISPs and server log files and even now through your TV!
If you have a new "Smart TV", have you actually read the privacy statement they make you sign in detail?

If not do so!

I read my new 4k TVs statement the other night and it mentioned built-in microphones and cameras installed into the TV to take photos of you for facial recognition and even to record your height, weight and vocal patterns.

Of course they claim that this is just to help deliver you tailored adverts and help with certain smart apps such as those that use voice commands or hand gestures but all this data goes off to a 3rd party company first to be analysed.

The legalese didn't mention who got access to this data or how long it was stored just that it could be used by the appropriate authorities and that non compliance was covered by New York Law.

Therefore if you break your new Smart TV's terms and conditions in any way you can have US policemen coming to arrest you wherever you are in the world. I have to wonder which 3 letter agencies get access to all this data, it really has become that Telescreen from George Orwell's 1984, if not I don't know how much closer they can become.

Just like phones which when switched off still have enough power to ping the phone masts and therefore record your whereabouts, I'd have a good bet that there is just enough power when your TV is in standby mode to record you through the microphone and camera.

Therefore don't rely on turning off your camera/microphone in the settings, if you are that paranoid go back to basics and cover them with masking tape. The simplest methods are best. However when even your TV is a sophisticated computer that can spy on you and record your actions and speech then we really have entered George Orwell's dystopian world.

Also people forget that our phones are those microchips everybody worried about having implanted in them to keep track of them by the Government in the 90s. It was the big thing, being chipped, a conspiracy theory that was just in the mind of tin foil hat wearing loons. However we happily take our phones with us everywhere we go. We constantly "Sign In", and "log where we are", "tag who we are with", and write down everything we are doing. Leaving a nice long trail of our life on the Internet to be remembered for decades to come.

To the youngsters of today there is no concept of privacy and they seem happy to give that away for the ability to communicate and therefore be logged and recorded.

With our mobile and household tracking devices we can now be located and spied on 24/7 and if you are a terrorist, domestic extremist, protester or even a citizen journalist (under new US combatant rules), you could find yourself being the target of something nasty flying through the air.

Microsoft, Facebook and Google constantly hand over all your private chat data, search requests, emails, and history of websites that we've visited to the authorities. Both if asked and sometimes just as standard due to their close relationships with the alphabet agencies of the US surveillance state. Google took seed money from the CIA and helped them design some of the NSA's searching algorithms for programs similar to those Snowden leaked such as PRISM and XKeyScore. Plus Microsoft was adding chips into their PC's from the 90's to help the NSA override any secure cryptography so that they could access your PC at will. Even the BBC reported on it in this 1999 article.

There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of national security which means knowing as much as possible about as many people as possible.

ISIS which is a creation of US/UK Middle Eastern foreign policy, just as al-Qaeda was a database of CIA cut out agents/Jihadists, used to destabilise countries as ex UK Foreign Minister, Robin Cook wrote about, are used to scare us into just handing over all our civil liberties that the terrorists supposedly hate us for having. The US were bombing ISIS for a year as their Caliphate grew in size. Therefore they were either very bad at their bombing campaign compared to the Russians or they were allowing them to survive. Using the existence of these terrorists as an excuse to cut our civil liberties is basically doing their job for them.

If they truly "hate us for our freedoms", as George W Bush famously said, we shouldn't hand all our freedoms away never for them to return with laws like the Patriot ACT and the NDAA and in the UK the multitude of anti-terrorism bills that have been passed.

So it's the same with all 3 states in the Axis of War, the UK, France and the USA who have all suspended certain rights and freedoms due to the "threat" of terrorism.

I'd really like to see both Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn be leaders of both the USA and UK at the same time JUST TO SEE if REAL CHANGE is even possible from the top down.

When Obama came into office on a wave of support due to his meaningless chant of "We Can Change", it seemed to me that the slogan was purely about the colour of the White House occupants. Therefore I don't even believe real change from the top is actually possible, never been tried, or just stopped by the main string pullers from behind the curtains.

Having two characters like Bernie and Corbyn in power would at least show us if it was still possible to change the world for the better whether you like their policies or not.
If both these men did have full control and held true to the principles they currently state then in power we should see:
  • Less prison for drugs and minor offences.
  • Less Banksters running a mock with our tax payers money and no "too big to fail or jail" companies allowed to bank roll terrorists and drug cartels (e.g HSBC).
  • Less spending on the department of war and more on education, job creation, house building and investment in the people and country instead of wasting it on £800,000 missiles that are fired into rubble in pointless overseas wars.
  • Less stupid overtures that suggest our leaders want to start a new cold (or even hot) war with Russia. They seem to forget Russia helped solve the Iran nuclear deal, remove chemical weapons from Syria and are basically crushing DAESH in Syria despite Turkey and Saudi Arabian support for the Jihadists.
  • Less power to corporations who are NOT real people with feelings and emotions yet in the USA under law they are treated as such and so during elections pump millions into campaigns of people who will benefit them if they get into power.
  • Better and cheaper health care free at the point of use in the US, and less middle management and PPI hospitals in the UK that are bankrupting us into the future.
  • Free adult education and the ability to retrain and gain new skills throughout your life to keep you in a job. Having taxpaying workers is much better than people relying on state handouts.
  • Oh and all the stolen civil liberties we have had removed from us due to the "War on Terror" returned in the hundreds.

The Two Faced Janus Coin of American Politics


The two faced Janus coin of US politics
Both Main Parties in the USA Serve The Same Interests

These are all good reasons why we need strong 3rd parties in the USA and UK.

Many Europeans don't even realise that 3rd parties exist in the USA. Parties such as the Greens, Libertarians, Justice Party and even (shock horror) socialists!

Major political reform is needed so that these parties get a fair shake of the whip during elections, can debate the other parties on the major networks, and get the air time they require to make a dent into the two-faced Janus coin called American Democratic elections.

Of course the reason they don't is that the debates are all staged collusion with the networks who are all filled with COINTELPRO government mouthpieces. They have no urge to see REAL change come to the USA and actually do something to shake up the status quo.

How many Americans know they are still living under "Emergency Laws" enacted after 9 11 giving the President ultimate power. When will this end?

How good would an alliance be between the UK and the USA that would get on with other nations better and stop real evil e.g Israeli illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and Chinese/Saudi treatment of their people instead of selling weapons and outsourcing all our jobs to them.

Money should not matter more than morals but to George Osborne, Obama and the US/UK arms companies who must carry on their trade it seemingly does.

Our allies are not dissimilar to our enemies e.g ISIS and Saudi Arabia, yet we allow the 7th century hypocritical scum that the Saudi's are to continue with own Janus act of both funding and fighting terrorism.

However will this ever happen or will the establishment prevent the elections of such men as Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn  due to the threat of real change?

The realistic outcome is that some idiot like Donald Trump or a warmonger like Hillary Clinton will get into power in the USA to reign alongside an equally right-wing Tory party in the UK and the Axis of War will roll on.....

One can only wish.....

Remember, as George Orwell famously said:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Oh, and you do have a real choice in your elections.

 
View the original article at the main site www.darkpolitricks.com.

By Dark Politricks
 
© 2015 Dark Politricks