Posts Tagged ‘Blair’

Blair Bliar & The Islamist Hatred He Brought

July 6, 2016

The Commission studying the war crimes of Prime Minister Blair came up with scathing conclusions. Blair is culprit as charged by anybody who has studied the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even Donald Trump thunderously charged, speaking of Bush and his ilk: “they lied”.

The lie was that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a secular regime, had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Of course it did not. Blair claimed that he was sincere, July 6, 2016. Either he is lying again, or he admits that he was then, truly, a complete imbecile. There is only one weapon of mass destruction: the nuclear bomb. It was impossible for Iraq to develop one, because Iraq had no nuclear reactor (so no Plutonium), nor a (extremely visible, as they were then immense) isotopic separation factories (so Iraq had no Uranium 235, the one and only other nuclear explosive). In truth, Blair was an architect of evil. Being an architect of evil, and how to sell that to We The People, is a skill plutocrats are ready to pay top dollar for. Thus Blair became immensely rich, following the Bill Clinton model:

Only A Small Part of It. Blair Is An Expert At Criminal Government, And How To Get Away With It, So His Services Are Much In Demand

Only A Small Part of It. Blair Is An Expert At Criminal Government, And How To Get Away With It, So His Services Are Much In Demand

Normal British and American people are ill-informed: their governments lied to their face, Hitler style, and they goose-stepped behind them.

The British Chilcot commission, recognized that, as a result, at least 150,000 Iraqi civilians died. 179 UK soldiers died, and more than 4,400 American soldiers (in truth much more than that, and several times that number were maimed, often inside their brains, from the accelerations of exploding IEDs).

Blair In A Few Words

Blair In A Few Words

Worse: the invasion of Iraq, this blunt, delirious, obscene, groundless attack against a secular Arab country showed to all Arabs, and now the whole world, that Islam was right all along. Thus the Islamist State mentality was born. Even worse: to the whole world, it was made obvious that the only way to oppose the West’s plutocratic drift, is on religious grounds (this already happened in the Seventh Century). And the anti-West religion par excellence is Islam (Islam was designed that way, explicitly, by Muhammad; Muhammad insisted that Islam was the way to defeat the Greco-Roman civilization and the Persian one, a Greco-Babylonian derivative). 

Blair Gave Bush The Cover He Needed

Blair Gave Bush The Cover He Needed

As The Guardian puts it: “Asked whether invading Iraq was a mistake Blair was strikingly unrepentant. “I believe we made the right decision and the world is better and safer,” he declared. He argued that he had acted in good faith, based on intelligence at the time which said that Iraq’s president had weapons of mass destruction. This “turned out to be wrong”.”

Blair’s two-hour press conference came after Chilcot, a retired civil servant, published his long-awaited report, seven years in the making, into the Iraq debacle. In the end, “it was a more far-reaching and damning document than many had expected. It eviscerated Blair’s style of government and decision-making.“

It also revealed that in a private note sent on 28 July 2002 Blair promised Bush: “I will be with you, whatever.” Is it just the love between two men, or the love of greed, and power, overwhelming all?

Thus now Islam, and its social equality message, poses as the great answer to the ravages of plutocracy. That is why Islam is gaining, even in Brazil.

How to stop all this? Well, first things first: the war criminals, those who conducted a war of aggression thanks to huge lies, should be indicted for war crimes.

At Nuremberg, Joachim Von Ribbentrop was condemned to hang (slowly, it turned out), for “war of aggression”. By this was meant the attack on Poland. France (and its British poodle, safely removed on its island) declared war to Germany three days later.  

So France was not viewed as the aggressor, although the Nazis accused France to have started World War Two. Why? One needs judgment: the aggressor were the Nazis, not the French Republic. And this is exactly what is needed now: judgment. Judge Blair and Bush. And their criminally behaved poodles. At least, if you want to avoid We The People to turn to Islam to stop what has become a criminal way of managing government, and getting away with it. For all to see.

Sex is strong. Hatred is stronger. Pushed to its limit, hatred makes killing the enemy what gives sense to the world. Hatred makes oneself divine (or very close to it). As the Qur’an explicitly says. This is the new world of mood Bush and Blair mightily fostered (part of a US tradition of using Islam as it always had been meant to be used, ever since the Fourth Caliph (Uthman): as an instrument of subjugation) . All those who don’t want to punish Bush and Blair for fostering mayhem, Islamization and subjugation,  contribute to it.

Patrice Ayme’

Hope At Last?

September 14, 2015

The 99% were told that they were culprit of the ways of high finance. The 99% were told that, they profited from the financial crisis, and had to be restrained with “austerity” (now that all the money had to go to the bankers and other richest people in the world, to save those towering pillars of society from ruin under which we would otherwise be crushed).

That the 99% were culprit of the high leverage of the financial system, thanks to heavy “investing” in financial derivatives such as Credit Default Swaps, was an absurdity: most people had no idea, and still have no idea, that much money creation by bankers, head that way, towards planet finance, instead of planet Earth.

Men Of Wealth, Taste, Power & "Three Minutes" Women

Men Of Wealth, Taste, Power & “Three Minutes” Women

Austerity, the claim that the 99% were too rich, and that this caused the crisis, after thirty years of “Trickle Down”, was, of course, insane. And therefore well received. The appropriate punishment was to insure that the richest would have the means to stay rich, and massive transfers of wealth to the richest people were implemented (even in Greece, where, last I checked, ship magnates were still not taxed!)

With the bleakest sense of humor, this Transfer of Assets to the Richest People TARP), was called… “TARP”, because it was the ultimate cover-up.

However, the economy has not recovered. So insane the gap between sacrifice and result, propaganda and observation, that even average voters are becoming suspicious.

In Spite Of Gigantic Sacrifices & Unemployment, "Austerity", Spain GDP Not Recovering

In Spite Of Gigantic Sacrifices & Unemployment, “Austerity”, Spain GDP Not Recovering

[I exhibited Spain’s GDP, but it’s typical. Lest some hysterical Germanophile comes up screaming that Germany is doing well, let me point out that Germany grew not at all in the last decade, averaging… one third of one percent yearly, which is only compatible with a population decrease, as observed… Thus Europe is literally dying from austerity.]

To accuse the 99% of the violations plutocrats engaged in, and only them can, is becoming so egregious, that even political leaders on the pseudo-left, like the followers of Blair in British Labor, find difficult to hold that discourse nowadays, with a straight face.

So here we are. The pyramid of lies on how the economy works, by self serving politicians in bed with the richest people in the world, is starting to collapse. Worldwide, voters are starting to have their own opinions, and feel that they were lied to, at a nearly inconceivable scale. Voters don’t just repeat anymore what the media owned by the richest people in the world have told them to think. Maybe there is hope after all.

Jeremy Corbyn, a long-time leftist dissident, just won a stunning victory for leadership of Britain’s Labour Party. In an excellent editorial, Paul Krugman  Labour’s Dead Center observes that:

…”one crucial piece of background to the Corbyn surge: the implosion of Labour’s moderates. On economic policy, in particular, the striking thing about the leadership contest was that every candidate other than Mr. Corbyn essentially supported the Conservative government’s austerity policies.

Worse, they all implicitly accepted the bogus justification for those policies, in effect pleading guilty to policy crimes that Labour did not, in fact, commit. If you want a U.S. analogy, it’s as if all the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2004 had gone around declaring, “We were weak on national security, and 9/11 was our fault.” Would we have been surprised if Democratic primary voters had turned to a candidate who rejected that canard, whatever other views he or she held?

In the British case, the false accusations against Labour involve fiscal policy, specifically claims that the Labour governments that ruled Britain from 1997 to 2010 spent far beyond their means, creating a deficit and debt crisis that caused the broader economic crisis. The fiscal crisis, in turn, supposedly left no alternative to severe cuts in spending, especially spending that helps the poor.

These claims have, one must admit, been picked up and echoed by almost all British news media. It’s not just that the media have failed to subject Conservative claims to hard scrutiny, they have reported them as facts. It has been an amazing thing to watch — because every piece of this conventional narrative is completely false.

Was the last Labour government fiscally irresponsible? Britain had a modest budget deficit on the eve of the economic crisis of 2008, but as a share of G.D.P. it wasn’t very high – about the same, as it turns out, as the U.S. budget deficit at the same time. British government debt was lower, as a share of G.D.P., than it had been when Labour took office a decade earlier, and was lower than in any other major advanced economy except Canada.”

The question boils down on why do people think what they do. Well, they think what they have been told to think. Krugman:

“…the supposed fiscal crisis never created any actual economic problem… there was never any need for a sharp turn to austerity.

In short, the whole narrative about Labour’s culpability for the economic crisis and the urgency of austerity is nonsense. But it is nonsense that was consistently reported by British media as fact. And all of Mr. Corbyn’s rivals for Labour leadership bought fully into that conventional nonsense, in effect accepting the Conservative case that their party did a terrible job of managing the economy, which simply isn’t true.”

Why do people do what they do? Well, most people basically try to survive honorably. However those with political aspirations are different. After all, they want to make a job of ruling us. Thirst for power is therefore, one may suspect, a prime motivation of theirs. And then the question is what do they believe they can get away with, on their royal road to domination? And what will be their justification for domination, which they will cover-up their thirst for power with?

Enter plutocratization, the general mood that the few, urged by the most basic instincts of domination, doing better than the many, is the best social organization for everybody. This “trickle down” theory has led the middle class down the road of increasing pauperization, even while global GDP was rising. Plutocratic media monopoly has insured that this mood became a modern religion.

Thatcher and Reagan were the modern instigators of plutocratization. Ex-British PM Tony Blair is a spectacular success of official corruption. Corruption by officials, of officials.  Blair helped to demolish Iraq to please oil barons (and American plutocrats). Blair sells his services to whoever it is most advantageous to sell them to. Piling up income from the likes of the dictator of Kazakhstan, he gathered in excess of 100 million dollars.

By now the middle class is starting to feel they were had by plutocratization. Methods of massive exploitation had to be changed. Enter the 2008 financial crisis. The “rescue” consisted in sending giant amount of money to banks and their managers. “Trickle Down” theory changed its face to “austerity”. The 99% were told that they were culprit of the 2008 crisis, they had to be punished. Completely brainwashed as they were, they welcomed their punishment.

Krugman: “Beyond that, however, Labour’s political establishment seems to lack all conviction, for reasons I don’t fully understand. And this means that the Corbyn upset isn’t about a sudden left turn on the part of Labour supporters. It’s mainly about the strange, sad moral and intellectual collapse of Labour moderates.”

In much of Western  society, in the last 35 years, political leaders got to power by undermining civilization, and Western democracy. They have been well paid for that: watch the fortunes past leaders have made, such as Major, Blair, Clinton, Gore, Chirac, and, of course, their families: Chelsea Clinton is very rich, but so are the brothers of past French presidents, although Chirac is worth only $10 million, roughly a tenth (Blair, Clintons) or a hundredth (Feinstein, Pelosi, Gore) of Anglo-Saxon politicians worth. Still remarkable, for someone such as Chirac, who was only an elected official all his life (in the USA, Reid of Nevada, head of democrats in the Senate, has a similar fortune and history; that brought charges of corruption, quickly silenced).

The British press is held by plutocrats, some Australian heirs (Murdoch, son and father of Murdochs), some even Russian “oligarchs”. This is where thinking has been coming from. And the charade will go on, until We The People think on their own. How soon? Can one think freely in a Mafia State? Certainly not in Russia. What about Britain? George Monbiot argues that Britain is also a Mafia State. Considering my personal experiences, I can only agree. Dawn is the coldest hour.

Patrice Ayme’

Fix Iraq? Judge Bush

June 14, 2014

The war started by G.W. Bush in 2003 is still on-going. The quick gains of 11,000 Islamist warriors, routing a much larger “Iraqi” army is explained only by the support of the Sunni population and of many of those who made Iraq work, before Bush destroyed it.

That Jihadist army is an international body headed by Iraqis (of Al Qaeda obedience, in the past), financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, sprinkled with some of Saddam Hussein’s generals and even some French (!) and Chechen. After the rout of Wednesday, Iran immediately rushed military “advisers” to the Shiite power in Baghdad. (Iran hated Saddam Hussein, and hates the Sunnis, all the more as the most sacred Shiite sites are south of Baghdad.)

Our Leaders: Greedy Mass Murderers

Our Leaders: Greedy Mass Murderers

The mistake the USA made was to dissolve the 700,000 strong Iraqi army and the Baathist, secular party that held Iraq as a civil society. That mistake was actually a crime, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention outlaws the destruction of a state. That the state was deliberately dismantled by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld is beyond question: so thorough was the dismantlement of the state, that all-important Iraqi museums and archeological sites were left defenseless.

Thus Bush and his ilk attacked not just Iraq, but all of humanity, not just by the atrocious examples they gave, but by the destruction of humanity’s memory.

Bush used to repeat: ”Saddam Hussein killed his own people.” Right, and Bush killed many times more. During the Iraq-Iran war, a war the West perhaps instigated, and, certainly actively supported and collaborated with, 5,000 civilian Kurds got chemically assassinated. Hussein and “Chemical Ali” were judged for this, and executed.

However, the number of Iraqis killed, after Bush’s attack, and consecutive to it, is of the order of 500,000, or maybe much more. So:

Saddam: 5,000 killed. Hanged.

Bush: 500,000+ killed. Painting.

Blair: 500,000+ killed. Still an authority of the EU, loudly praying for more bombing of Iraq.

Now the old Baathist and old Iraqi army are counterattacking. And there is nothing the USA can do: the counter-offensive is mixed with the (Sunni) population, so aerial strikes are not an effective, nor moral, option.

All there is to do is watch. If one wants to help, maybe one could put Bush and his accomplices on trial for war crimes. That would impress the Iraqis. That would build some real clout. But will the USA have the guts?

Let me explain slowly: the respect of law comes only from the fact all men, and children, know early on, that all are the same as far as the law is concerned. The lower moral types, those obsessed by the market, those who claim all the time that anything can be fixed through buying and selling, those who claim we are living in a globalized world, those tiny critters who rule, have to be treated the way they advocate.

They have to understand, with their tiny minds, that the market is nothing without the government, and the government nothing without an army driven by morality.

If it’s a global market, then, it’s a global morality. That means, a global law.

It’s high time for the USA to judge its war criminals. As France judged her own. How difficult is it to write a warrant of arrest for a guy who, by his wanton, cruel, and vicious acts, brought the death of hundreds of thousands of people?

And don’t forget Blair the Liar. Unbelievably that murderous Bliar, a plutocrat with more than eight residences, and an enormous fortune made as a payment for his satanic activities, is the “European Peace Envoy to the Middle East”. He is of course advising to commit more murderous bombing in Iraq.

Blair said he could not be judged for his war crimes (whereas Desmond Tutu and many other prestigious personalities advised that he should be). His argument was that the United Nations allowed the attack in Iraq. That’s actually false. What’s true is that a vote authorizing the attack did not happen.

The French Republic warned Bush that any attempt at the UN to allow for an attack would result in the exact opposite, namely an explicit interdiction of such an action, and that France had the votes in the Security Council.

So there was no authorization vote. The EU ought to be ashamed to use Blair in any function except as the main attraction in the International Criminal Court. Instead, Laurent Gbagbo, an Ivoirian president who allegedly used undemocratic means to stay in power too long, is going to be judged.

Gbagbo, in the worst possible case, was co-responsible of the deaths of few thousand people.  Blair, at least half a million (Bush would not have gone to war without Blair).

Gbagbo versus Blair: now, that’s true racism. Blair is just white, a plutocrat connected to the highest leading circles, and a pseudo converted Catholic (Blair cynically used that religious calling to say that he won’t have done it without the Lord’s agreement; so, on top of everything, the creep is straight out of the Crusades!)

The British and USA government officials deliberately lied to the United Nations. That sort of manipulation, by itself, to justify a war of aggression, is a war crime (the legal precedent being Von Ribbentrop at Nuremberg). Von Ribbentrop was hanged, as deserved. But then why are Blair and Bush still free to run around?

France executed around 40,000 Nazi collaborators in the 1944-48 period. Including an ex-Prime Minister (Pierre Laval)… And some authentic World War One heroes. Sometimes, recovering one’s honor, hope and human rights, let alone a Republican, Democratic Constitution, requires some work. And some courage. Can the USA step to the plate?

The Jihadist army is propelled by the prestige attached to fighting the bloody mass murdering tyrant Bachar Assad, scion of Assad. Thus the action of the USA and Britain, by  not striking the monster last summer, contributed to the Jihadist cause.

Ladies and gentlemen interventionists, you want to help Iraqis? Show them what democracy is about. It starts with justice. You want to help Iraq? Judge and condemn those Westerners who threw it into murderous chaos. They are easier to arrest than Ben Laden. And they killed much more people. And they are a much graver case. They are to civilization what a tumor is to a brain. Shall I repeat their names, or you still don’t get it?

Patrice Aymé