United Sexuality of America (USexA)


Just pondering about the Tiger Woods Affair, and how the Jew media cleared their desks for this one bit of trivia news item. To be sure he is a public figure, whose career is based on the public's interest, respect (related to merchandising) and adulation of his exceptional qualities as a sportman in the field of golf, which has traditionally been identified as a pastime of the prosperous Occidental. But I thought publicly apologizing for his extra-marital affairs, and checking into a sex clinic were a bit OTT in terms of public and private repentance.

There is much to be said about sportmen being perfect role models for society generally, but of course the reality in relation to pop stars, politicians, media personalities and famous sportsmen and women is quite different. That reality should apply to Tiger Woods as much as the rest of the great and the good in the USA; Tiger Woods should not become the lone scape goat, for a very minor deviance.

After all there are a few things to consider when we view the whole panorama of American sexuality:

1. The USA has the biggest sex Industry......biggest in the world.
In Australia it is worth around $12 billion in 2010, and so in America 15 times bigger population wise, and far more hornier than the Aussies, the trade is worth possibly about $200 billion? Often operating within the unregulated black economy. Now there are sex industries (Amsterdam, Paris, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Soho, Rio), and sex industries, but one can guess a good deal of what goes on in this industry, though filling peoples "acute needs" and fetishes, is morally questionable, which a good deal of us could tut tut about. Certainly far more questionable than extra-marital affairs, which though obviously wrong, is not the worst crime in the vast field of sexual gratification. The USA is a society where sexual gratification is seen as a normal human activity, often through casual relationships, in numerous venues and the obtaining of this gratification is very cheap and easy. The Pilgrim Father Quakers would not recognize such a society. It is within the context of the loose values of such a society that Tiger Woods extra marital faux pas must be seen and understood........it is not to be criticized, this is the characteristic of many modern societies, BUT it is a little unfair to say, Tiger Woods, extra marital Affair, arguments with wife....."End of the world".

"Women are more likely to be victimized by someone that they are intimate with, commonly called "Intimate Partner Violence" or (IPV). The impact of domestic violence in the sphere of total violence against women can be understood through the example that 40-70% of murders of women are committed by their husband or boyfriend" wikipedia.....Wife/female battery by hubby/boyfriend........statistically....estimates that as many as 75% of women in the USA will face some form of violence when they mature and begin dating from 16 onwards, from their boyfriends and hubby..............often unreported to police as it is perceived by society generally as a private matter between partners. If hypothetically there are 120 million American women in some form of relationships, then 90 million will have experience some form of physical abuse from their boyfriend or hubby ranging from the slap and push to more serious abuse.

3. Child abduction and slavery for ritual sex and execution.
........this is the allegation practiced by sections of America's criminal elite. Children abducted from within America, and outside for
ritual sex and sacrifice.......linked to old Jewish practices.

The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska (Paperback)

2,000 children go missing in the United States every single Day!!! according to Oprah?

4. Rent boys and the Whitehouse........allegation that the Whitehouse had invited under age http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5OJPeHCmhA">rent boys to the Whitehouse for sexual gratification, and therefore linked to the above story........male underage prostitutes invited to Whitehouse for sex....The British equivalent being Churchill inviting masseurs to 10 Downing Street for sex, which he did of course.

5. The casual sexualisation of American teenagers by the Jewish dominated media in the USA.........Thus under age sex, sexual promiscuity, under age pregnancy.......Miley Cyrus et al.
Children, including teenagers are vulnerable to such a powerful experience as sexual intercourse, and of course their body is not yet fully physically formed for such strong emotional encounters.........they are still in their formative years.

6. Sexual fetishes......diaper wearing sex, S & M etc., gay airport toilet sex.......scatology. One wonders with the amount of sex going on privately in America by consenting adults, or otherwise, what % of it would be considered illegal under American law.

7. The America's media love for creating hero's, and then destroying them....the psychology/schadenfreude.

8. Typical men's sexual urges.........sexual habits and sexual arousal of men varies from culture to culture, country to country. In America the typical conditioned object of male desire is the attractive young blonds (in her sexual prime of a single women in her 20--30's) with long legs and a very pert body, with pert tits. Added to this would be her smell, type of dress...short skirt, revealing chest...........oh yes....yes yes, yes yes........make up, the way she walked and talked. It is suggested that women lose their sex drive when they bear children, and into their 40's, as they focus more on the children. For men their sex drive continues much later.....that's why you hear about dirty old men, but not dirty old women. Tiger Woods behavior is very much alpha male, and very American.

9. Extra marital Affairs... adultery, fornication, philander, infidelity in the USA:

From Wikipedia: "American biologist Alfred Kinsey found in his 1950-era studies that 50% of American males and 26% of females had extramarital sex.

{This sample is from the conservative post war era of the 1950's, before the sexual revolution of the 1960's and the contraceptive pill became widely available}

Depending on studies, it was estimated that 26-50% of men and 21-38% of women, or 22.7% of men and 11.6% of women had extramarital sex. Other authors say that between 20% and 25% Americans had sex with someone other than their spouse. Durex's Global Sex Survey has found that 44% of adults worldwide have had one-night extramarital sex and 22% have had an affair. According to a 2004 United States survey,16% of married partners have had extramarital sex, nearly twice as many men as women, while an additional 30% have fantasized about it."

"Some researchers say there's a 50–50 chance today that one partner will have an affair during a marriage; that includes non-physical relationships. Some authorities (for example Frank Pittman in 'Grow Up' Golden Books) observe infidelity is involved in 90% of first time divorces. A 1997 study with Kristina Gordon found “more than half of the marriages that experience infidelity ended in divorce”.27% of people who reported being happy in marriage admitted to having an affair. In the UK, the average adult will go through 9/10 sexual partners before they marry, and its not inconciebale that often previous relationships may be rekindled or continue even after a person marries.

Each case of infidelity serves a different purpose. Being able to justify the behavior of a spouse and define it will lessen some of the confusion. There are five categories of infidelity:

1.opportunistic infidelity
2.obligatory infidelity
3.romantic infidelity
4.conflicted romantic infidelity, and
5.commemorative infidelity

6. Male Egotistical infidelity.

7. Male power infidelity.

Opportunistic infidelity occurs when a partner is in love and attached to a spouse, but surrenders to their sexual desire for someone else. This is driven by situational circumstances or opportunity and risk-taking behavior.

Obligatory infidelity is based on fear that refraining from someone’s sexual advances will result in rejection. Some people end up cheating solely on the need for approval, even though they may still hold a strong attraction to their spouse.

Romantic infidelity occurs when the cheater is, so to speak, falling out of love with his/her spouse. Their commitment to the marriage (and children) is what is most likely keeping them with their spouse.

Conflicted romantic infidelity takes place when a person falls in love and has a strong sexual desire for multiple people at one time. Although there is the idea of one true love, it is possible to have a strong love attraction to more than one person at the same time.

Commemorative infidelity occurs when a person has completely fallen out of love with their spouse, but is still in a committed relationship with them.

Male Egotistical infidelity occurs when a man with heightened egotistical desires to prove his manhood and his particular perceptions of manhood (Italian stallion, Casanova, Don Juan ) embarks on multiple short term physical relationships with many women often at the same time, without any sense of pure or deep love or attachment.

Male power infidility occurs when males in positions of responsibility and power over others exert their sexual desires and intercourse close to people working with them, either consensually or without their consent.......the manager and his secretary, the father and child {child abuse by parents is more widely undertaken then is commonly accepted } orphange, childrens homes, and its director and staff.......and other such institutional situations.

These above are all categories and reason to which a spouse would cheat or have the notion to do so.

10. Mistresses of the great and good..kept women, lovers
......from Wikipedia again: "A mistress is a man's long-term female lover and companion who is not married to him, especially used when the man is married to another woman. The relationship generally is stable and at least semi-permanent; however, the couple does not live together openly. Also the relationship is usually, but not always, secret. And there is the implication that a mistress may be "kept"—i.e., that the man is paying for some of the woman's living expenses."

"Historically, the term has denoted a kept woman, who was maintained in a comfortable (or even lavish) lifestyle by a wealthy man so that she will be available for his sexual pleasure. Such a woman could move between the roles of a mistress and a courtesan depending on her situation and environment. Today, however, the word mistress is used primarily to refer to the female lover of a man who is married to another woman; in the case of an unmarried man it is usual to speak of a "girlfriend" or "partner." Historically a man "kept" a mistress. As the term implies, he was responsible for her debts and provided for her in much the same way as he did his wife, although not legally bound to do so. In more recent and emancipated times, it is more likely that the mistress has a job of her own, and is less, if at all, financially dependent on the man."

"A mistress is not a prostitute. While a mistress, if "kept", may essentially be exchanging sex for money, the principal difference is that a mistress keeps herself exclusively reserved for one man, in much the same way as a wife, and there is not so much of a direct quid pro quo between the money and the sex act. There is also usually an emotional and possibly social relationship between a man and his mistress, whereas the relationship to a prostitute is predominantly sexual. It is also important that the "kept" status follows the establishment of a relationship of indefinite term as opposed to the agreement on price and terms established prior to any activity with a prostitute."

King Soloman had many wives and many mistresses (lovers) and this has been the royal practice for many cultures, in many countries, in many continents. The lesson of history teaches us that the more wealth and power one has, the greater the sexual liberation, privilege and experimentation.

"The historically best known and most researched mistresses are the royal mistresses of European monarchs, for example Diane de Poitiers, Barbara Villiers, Nell Gwynne and Madame de Pompadour. However, the keeping of a mistress in Europe was not confined to royalty and nobility but permeated down through the social ranks. Anyone who could afford a mistress could have one (or more), regardless of social position. A wealthy merchant or a young noble might have a kept woman. Being a mistress was typically an occupation for a younger woman who, if she was fortunate, might go on to marry her lover or another man of rank. The ballad The Three Ravens (published in 1611, but possibly older) extolls the loyal mistress of a slain knight, who buries her dead lover and then dies of the exertion, as she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. It is noteworthy that the ballad-maker assigned this role to the knight's mistress ("leman" was the term common at the time) rather than to his wife."

"In the courts of Europe, particularly Versailles and Whitehall in the 17th and 18th centuries, a mistress often wielded great power and influence. A king might hold numerous mistresses but have a single "favourite mistress" or "official mistress" (in French, "maîtresse en titre"), as with Louis XV and Madame de Pompadour. The mistresses of both Louis XV (especially Mme de Pompadour) and Charles II were often considered to exert great influence over their lovers, the relationships being open secrets. Other than wealthy merchants and kings, Alexander VI is but one example of a Pope who kept mistresses, in violation of the celibacy vows required by the Catholic church."

"While the extremely wealthy might keep a mistress for life (as George II of England did with "Mrs Howard"), even after they were no longer romantically linked, such was not the case for most kept women. In 1736, when George II was newly ascendant, Henry Fielding (in Pasquin) has his Lord Place say, "…but, miss, every one now keeps and is kept; there are no such things as marriages now-a-days, unless merely Smithfield contracts, and that for the support of families; but then the husband and wife both take into keeping within a fortnight."

"During the 19th century, a time in which morals became more puritanical, the keeping of a mistress became more circumspect, but conversely the tightening of morality also created a greater desire for a man to have a mistress. When an upper class man married a woman of equal rank, as was the norm, it was likely that she had been strictly brought up to believe that sexual intercourse was firmly for procreation rather than recreation. Some men thus went to a mistress if they wanted a less prudish female companion."

"It occasionally occurs that the mistress is in a superior position both financially and socially to her lover. Catherine the Great was known to have been the mistress of several men during her reign; however, like many powerful women of her era, in spite of being a widow free to marry, she chose not to share her power with a husband, preferring to maintain absolute power alone. In literature, D. H. Lawrence's work Lady Chatterley's Lover portrays a situation where a woman becomes the mistress of her husband's gamekeeper. Until recently, a woman's taking a lover socially inferior to herself was considered much more shocking than the reverse situation."

"During the 20th century, as many women became better educated and more able to support themselves, fewer women found satisfaction in the position of being a mistress and were more likely to pursue relationships with unmarried men. Since divorce became more socially acceptable,it was now easier for men to divorce their wives and marry the women who, in earlier eras, would have been their mistresses. However, the practice of having a mistress still existed among some married men, especially the wealthy. In Europe, for example, many cultures continued to acknowledge and condone the practice of keeping mistresses."

(France, Spain, Itay....in Thailand a mistress is known as a Mianoye sort of kept lover or minor wife)

Prince Charles first girlfriend, and later mistress was Lady Camila Parker Bowles, both having a widely acknowledged (by the inner circle of the royal family) long running relationship whilst they were respectively married. Both eventually divorced and married each other formalizing their relationship......the source of which generated a lot of gossip, but no public apology from Prince Charles.

"Occasionally, men married their mistresses {as per the above example}. The late Sir James Goldsmith, on marrying his mistress, Lady Annabel Birley, declared, "When you marry your mistress, you create a job vacancy"."
{alleged real father of Lady Diana, and biological grandfather of Prince William)

11. Putting things into the proper context.....we all like a good gossip, after all that is how civilization evolved according to certain research papers. The point being that with the mass media in modern sophisticated states, a certain responsibility must be exercised about how their power is exerted in relation to what must be communicated to Joe public. To be sure Tiger Woods arguing with his wife over alleged extra marital affairs in the early hours of the morning might have certain gossip value. But must it also be minutely picked over week after weeks on MSM TV? Is it REAL NEWS, in the context of what is actually going on in the sum total of USA society?....One thinks not.

12. Level playing field of public morality: As indicated above, in the USA there are many alleged sexual misdemeanors, and other forms of illegality which obviously have a moral perspective { racial discrimination, illegal wars of aggression against people of color for oil or heroin, white color corporate crime, war crimes, state terrorism, the widening gap of the rich and poor in the USA, the 40 million underclass of America and growing, as the country becomes paradoxically more richer..............Is the USA police state, and why is it a police state? Overall moral degeneration of America......and so forth...we can find many issues of moral contention in American society, as with with most societies )............in that wider perspective, the morality of Tiger Woods boning a few bimbo's is not the worst of moral conundrums in the USA, AND NOR SHOULD IT BE HIGHLIGHTED AS SUCH.

13. Morality as a tool of racial subjugation......holier than thou: Is it just possible that the vilification of Tiger Woods by the American media has a racial angle? Is America a racist society, where being colored and successful is intolerably stressful.........and that the minor indiscretion of a "ethnic" sports star becomes the focus of attention based on this underlying racism in American society....."You can make it in America, but don't expect equal treatment when you do get to the top" . We could write a thing or two about Dubya's cocaine adventures at Harvard/Yale; his alcoholism; Satanism; and homosexual rent boy jaunts in the Whitehouse; draft dodging; Saudi linked business ventures gone sour......BUT as a white President, these should all be sniggered and laughed about as water under the bridge man, lighten up, and don't expect any apology from him.

14. Differences in moral standards as statement of power: Linked to the above and Male Egotistical/power infidelity.......all too often those who commit the main and serious crimes in America seem to get away with it because they have power, whilst those who are punished, are punished because they have very little power...................a man steals $1 of cheese from a store as he is hungry and has no money, and he is probably part of America's growing underclass, and so he is jailed for 10 years for such a crime. Too often America's criminal justice system, and inmate population {2.5 million gulag population 2010?} is NOT the real reflection of the proper legal system of a modern nation and the actual LEVEL of criminality being fairly and judiciously punished, with the pure application of the rule of law, but rather a social/economic juggling game based on your ethnic background, level of education, good looks psychology and level of income............aspects of this FACT within American society is reflected in the recent Tiger Woods hysteria by "Fuck the News" and others.

15. The prevalent culture of American celebrity Golf: What precisely is the prevalent culture of American celebrity golf? According to some gossip, you play hard during the day, posing with Ralph Lauren pants and Kelvin Klein shirts, strolling with nonchalance and a certain degree of measure............whilst in the evening you also play hard, boning and humping as many women as possible.
If as a celebrity player, within the accepted inner circle of golf you announced that you were attending Sunday Bible classes, or going home at 5 to see the kids, the inner circle would think that you were from Venus, a moron alien..........celebrity golf is an exclusive club with its own standards and morals....and not purely about how good a golfer you are. Golf in America is an exclusive club fraternity, within the private sphere......... denoting wealth, privilege, class and yes success. There are certain Golf Clubs within America where some people wouldn't be able to get into, no matter how a good a golf player they were.

Within that wider context of Tiger Woods being an ethnic outsider, emerging in the 1990's in Clintonesq America, the pressure to conform to the norms of celebrity golfing "etiquette" would be enormous, to say the least.

16. Religion and sex: from wikipedia:
"In Christianity Extramarital sex is considered to be immoral by most Christian groups, who base this primarily on passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

It is listed as a sin here and in other passages (along with idolatry, theft, greed, lying, and sexual perversion). While the next verse from the above passage is quick to point out that although some Christians used to practice those sins—that they have since been "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" and are thus forgiven their sins—extramarital sex has historically been considered to be one of the more serious and damaging sins, possibly because of passages like 1 Corinthians 6:18 that speak of it as sinning against one's own body."

40% of Americans are evangelical Christians, who in comparison to most modern Liberal Democratic post industrial states take their religion rather too seriously. The evangelical Christian movement is linked to most white Americans of the less privileged, or Mid West kind, with connections to Right-wing policies and politics in America on an array of issues ranging from Israel's security paramaters, and needs, to abortion, immigration, contents and modes of education, to multiple other contentious issues.

Using the veneer of religious holier than thou positions on issues of morality is a global phenomenon, but especially in Third World societies with strong religious sensibilities........Abortion in Mexico, Gay rights in Brazil, adult women seen with strangers Iran, female education Afghanistan, women not wearing Burqa/veil Iraq under American occupation........and so on. To be sure it must be satisfying for the religious wing of America bashing Tiger Woods into submission, public apology, house arrest, induction into sex clinic, disappearance from public life, disappearance from the sporting scene as a little satisfying, and an indication of their "power" and affirmation of the equating of their values with the sum total of "American values", but is this fair, balanced and right?

Is not religious morals in an advanced society a private matter, where no public harm is apprehended?

17. American public figures preaching about Victorian values......with the background of criminality that exists in the country, and outside the country at the behests of American foreign policy and domestic policy it is highly irritating and hypocritical to see American public figures and media personalities singing holier than thou with a straight face, in rather assured measured voices, about specific moral issues such as Tiger Woods recent indiscretion.

18. John Edwards Affairs and Right wing politics:.....Unfortunately from the 1990's when attacking the political apponenent for their policies became less fashionable, because substantively the two parties occupied the same political space, WHEN IN POWER, and mono-syllable personal attacks became more in vogue, typified by the Clinton blow job affair and Ken Starr's crusade against it.........this trend has continued by the American right. One detects shades of this on the distinctly apolitical Tiger Woods, and his very minor indiscretion recently by the likes of "Fuck the News." To be sure politicians who grandstand on issues of public morals should be called to account when they break their own rules, naturally--------they have applied double standards to themselves and in preaching to the public as public officials with power and privilege. On the other hand dredging up private issues of public figures which does not relate to their fundamental policies is victimization.......including extra-marital affairs and love child. Though at a practical level a political person with a love child would be untenable in the present situation, though it should be noted given Edwards background that a good deal of the elite in America, such as the Rockefeller do spread their seed around, via extra marital affairs....allegation that Rhodes scholar, twice president Bill Clinton from nowhere is a product of a Rockefeller seed...AND that in many Western countries as much as 30% of children are in families where one of their parents is not their natural biological parent......love child by another name.

19. Holy men sexual affairs......Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian:

Holy men affairs is all too prevalent in all religions........and relevant to the moral outrage and attention around the Tiger Woods debate. The idea that someone should preach about GOD and what is right and wrong as their life career, whilst conducting major indiscretions within their position in society.

20. Jewish public figure misdemeanors. "Merv the purve sexual drive" Woody Alan etc:

21. In light of ALL this in the USA alone, let alone the rest of the barbaric world, which have yet to attain the civilizational levels of the USA.......The shining beacon of light on the hill of humanity.......the exceptional nation (exceptions to International law)..........then I say to Tiger Woods, you should not have apologized publicly..........privately apologizing to wife and trying to patch things together again is a different matter........and most certainly should not have checked into a clinic........public apologies have legal implications, if divorce proceedings take place in the future.

But otherwise.......

Thumbs Up......

You the MAN.


Fake media wars.

At what point do the criminals in America become fully satisfied with the Opium profits in Afghanistan, and then decide to leave that poor wretched country for good?

Until then some more silly manufactured military ops to justify their presence there in.......you guessed Helmand province, numero uno poppy growing area in Afghanistan.

The opium which is loaded on C-130's and transported to NATO military bases in Europe and North America, and then into the domestic market.

"War is a racket"

General Smedley Butler


Marjah Madness

by Jeff Huber at Antiwar.com

As journalist Gareth Porter said in a recent interview with Real News, Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s offensive in Marjah, Afghanistan, is "more of an effort to shape public opinion in the United States than to shape the politics of the future of Afghanistan." Like so much of what we’ve seen in our woeful war on terrorism, the Marjah effort is short on substance and long on Newspeak, Doublethink, and other Orwellian deceptions.

The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, and an unhealthy chunk of the rest of the news outlets are calling the Marjah madness a "test" of "Obama’s strategy" in Afghanistan. Amazingly, nobody is calling it a test of McChrystal’s strategy. Stan the Man is, after all, the maestro who orchestrated the big honking counterinsurgency (COIN) plan with its attendant troop escalation and who then, along with Gen. David Petraeus and the rest of the warmongery, boxed Obama into going along with the scheme through an expansive media campaign that included McChrystal’s September 2009 infomercial on 60 Minutes.

We don’t need to feel sorry for Obama, though. He asked for this during the 2008 presidential race when he decided to show the hawks his baby-makers by saying he’d pull us out of Iraq but he’d "get the job" done in Afghanistan. Pavlov’s dogs of war started frothing when he stepped on that land mine. Obama had a chance to get rid of the war dons – Petraeus, McChrystal, Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, and the Pentagon’s bureaucratic survival savant, Robert Gates – when he took office. But no, President Obama kept them around, despite the fact that they all had publicly criticized Candidate Obama’s plan to establish an Iraq withdrawal timeline. Obama exacerbated things when he named retired Army Gen. James Jones as national security adviser; Jones had stated for the record in 2007 that an Iraq withdrawal deadline would be "against our national interest."

So, yes, Marjah is a referendum on Obama’s fitness as commander in chief, and it’s becoming clear that the guy is in over his pay grade.

A key component of McChrystal’s hallucinatory COIN plan is an initiative to build up Afghanistan’s security forces to an end-strength of 400,000. He’d be better off paying them all off to go home and keep out of the way.

When 60 Minutes reported on the status of Afghan security forces training in late January, the native troops were literally shooting themselves in the foot and their instructors in the leg. According to 60 Minutes – which means according to what Af-Pak propaganda czar Rear Adm. Gregory Smith told 60 minutes – the Afghan troops were commandos, Afghanistan’s best soldiers, and they were being trained by Green Berets, America’s "best soldiers."

The "specialized" Afghan troops had received three months of "advanced training" before coming under the tutelage of the Green Berets. When they displayed their tendency to shoot everybody but the bad guys, the Green Berets drilled them in the fundamentals of how to load their weapons and hold them safely. When the Afghan commandos couldn’t even perform those tasks correctly, the Green Berets started treating them like raw recruits and tried to instruct them by yelling at them.

Yet somehow Smith and his spin merchants and their dupes in the mainstream media expected us to believe that by late February, Afghan forces were ready to take charge of their country’s destiny. "In Marjah offensive, Afghan forces take the lead," claimed a Feb. 15 headline in the Christian Science Monitor. But by Feb. 20 even the New York Times, the journalistic home of McChrystal idolater Dexter Filkins, had to confess that "Marines Do Heavy Lifting as Afghan Army Lags in Battle."

Bravo to journalist C.J. Chivers, a former Marine, for reporting that the assertion by American and Afghan officials that portrays "the Afghan Army as the force out front in this important offensive against the Taliban" conflicts with "what is visible in the field." By all important measures, "from transporting troops, directing them in battle and coordinating fire support to arranging modern communications, logistics, aviation, and medical support – the mission in Marjah has been a Marine operation conducted in the presence of fledgling Afghan Army units, whose officers and soldiers follow behind the Americans and do what they are told."

I hope the owners of the Times don’t fire Chivers. It would be nice to think that the rag of record has at least one reporter capable of telling the truth.

Another Times contributor, Timothy Hsia, a West Point graduate who has served in Iraq, says in a Feb. 18 piece that success in Marjah will hinge on a "civilian surge." Hsia has, lamentably, bitten off on the jagged piece of crack-pottery that says in order to succeed in Afghanistan we need lots and lots of American civilians to go over there and be policemen and fire dudes and construction workers and so on as part of a Civilian Response Corps. The idea is so ludicrous that its proponents picked Dick Cheney protégé Doug Feith, the dumbest freaking guy on the planet, to shill it in a May 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

We already have a Civilian Response Corps; it’s called the Peace Corps, and it’s been around since before people joined it to get out of fighting in Vietnam. As you might have already inferred, the reason we call it a "Peace" Corps is that it only works in a peacetime scenario. Sending U.S. civilians into a hot war zone, especially one like we have in Afghanistan where there are no front lines, doesn’t accomplish a whole lot except get a whole lot of U.S. civilians killed. The only way to try to protect the civilians is to send more soldiers to the war zone or (aha!) hire mercenary outfits like Blackwater to do the job. Even then, the civilians have to stay holed up in areas where the soldiers or the hired thugs can protect them, so they can’t do what we supposedly sent them for.

But civilians provide a vital layer in the Pentagon’s lame-excuse stratagem. If our military can’t win a war, it’s because we don’t have enough military in the theater of operations. If we have enough military, we don’t have enough military from the country we’re fighting in to fight with us. If we have enough military from the country we’re fighting in but they turn out to be a pack of Gomer Pyles, then we don’t have enough civilians involved. Next, I suppose, come household pets.

Of course, civilians might be able to do one thing that our Green Berets can’t: teach Afghan soldiers how to load and carry their rifles.


Marjah Offensive Aimed to Shape US Opinion on War

The Chilcott enquiry again.

I have covered this area before here, and I am going back to it in light of Bliar's Jewish Chutzpah vaudeville performance at the inquiry recently.

The Chilcott inquiry is important at many levels, not just for the sake of morals, national image, but also for the sake of state accountability, and how to avoid such things repeating themselves in the future in relation to Iran and other such places.

To be sure the UK has been in many wars since 1066, but with the progression of time, Britain as a mature sophisticated state should be able to conduct what one may term truly just and necessary wars which ultimately serve Britain's real interests over and above getting involved in wars merely to please friends such as Israel and the USA, and not much else as the rational for entering into the war against Iraq.

The illegality of war in Iraq:

  • Fake intelligence from Italy, in the form of Niger Uranium allegations. We could have a number of people from Italy, and the USA invited to the inquiry to talk about this important saga, and how the drum beat for war was created falsely.
  • The false claim that Iraq, broken and neutered after 12 years of stringent sanctions was some how in a position to attack the "West" within 45 minutes, with non-existent WMD's.
  • The false claim that Iraq, broken and neutered after 12 years of stringent sanctions was some how in a position to attack the "West" within 45 minutes, with non-existent WMD's, even though the Northern part of the country was effectively under Kurdish control operating autonomously, and the Southern part, suffering little effective control by Saddam's Ba'athists...........How do these Jew Chutzpah people explain that a nation dismembered, and neutered, with possibly 1,000,000 dead from stringent sanctions between 1991---2003, could still pose as a serious threat to the "West" in any shape or form?
  • Saddam's Iraq by 2003 had effectively become a failed state with very little central control, and Saddam the leader of just 20% of the Iraqi people....the Sunnis. Former Baathists from Iraq and others could be invited to the inquiry to explain the real Iraq in 2003, rather than the imaginary one created by Bush/Bliar Co.
  • Allegations of mobile WMD weapons labs, which did not exist.
  • The repeated efforts by government officials who subsequently resigned stating that Britain's involvement in the war was illegal under International law.
  • The repeated attempts by Saddam to seek safe passage to the UAE with guarantees for him and his family, which the British through the Americans must have known about.
  • Why did Bliar think Saddam was a monster who needed removing, who in addition posed a serious threat to the "West"......when Saddam sent clear signals to the Americans and others that he wanted a guaranteed safe passage out of Iraq for him and his family.
  • Why did Bliar want to wage war, which would inevitably kill British servicemen; cost Billions of pounds, when Saddam sent clear indicators/feelers that he wanted a escape route out of Iraq for him and his family.
  • Saddam's military of 2003 was a shadow of its former self, numbering about 400,000 men who were not regularly paid, and lacked spares for their Soviet era equipment.....70% of Saddam's military had been destroyed in the first Gulf War. Queue evidence of former military officers from the Iraqi military at the inquiry.
  • Saddam was installed by the Americans, according to Adel Darwish, London based Arab Journalist. Saddam sought advice and received American encouragement to attack Iran in 1980 via Brzezinski in Jordan. Saddam asked permission from the American ambassador to invade Kuwait, which she cryptically gave in 1990; hardly the macho rogue independent Third World dictator purely acting on his own. If Saddam was a monster he was an American created monster............Would very much like Adel Darwish and other Arab experts give evidence to state that Saddam was indeed an American created, and ARMED puppet.........as the saying goes in Iraq, "Out with the apprentice, and in with the master"
  • The Americans owned Saddam's intelligence chief, and most of the Iraqi general staff by 2003 (This explains why the Iraqi military stood down, without offering resistance during the initial invasion), which the Bliar government so close to the American's would have known about surely, or should have known about...........If the Americans had that level of control of the Iraqi military, and Saddam is an alleged American installed puppet, how did Saddam's regime constitute a meaningful threat to the "West" with his non-existent WMD's? Would like American experts, and analysts who were familiar with this fact give evidence at the inquiry.
  • The Americans owned Saddam's intelligence chief, and most of the Iraqi general staff by 2003 (This explains why the Iraqi military stood down, without offering resistance during the initial invasion), which the Bliar government so close to the American's would have known about surely, or should have known about........given this level of access to the Iraqi regime surely the Americans for certain would have been in a position to verify the true threat level of Saddam to the "West" and thus know for certain whether Saddam was still in possession of WMD's. Would like American experts to be invited to give evidence to the inquiry about this matter.
  • The ISG, with over 1,400 staff looking for WMD's never found any.
  • The UN inspectors did not think Saddam had any WMD's prior to the war.
  • The IAEA did not think Saddam was working covertly on certain crude North Korea type nuke bombs.
  • Saddam was surviving on the largess of the UN food for oil program after 1991, so where would Saddam get enough money to maintain his regime through the patronage system, AND rebuild his war torn country after the first Gulf War, AND still fund an expansive covert WMD's program?
  • How would Saddam evade the extensive surveillance by UN WMD monitors, with their go anywhere, inspect everything responsibility and work of a decade?
  • Why was Scott Ritter's significant information on the matter ignored. Could he be invited to the inquiry?
  • Bush told Bliar in the January 2003 meeting, prior to the Iraqi invasion that after Iraq, he would invade Iran, and then a few other countries..................how many countries was Bliar willing to invade with the USA? What did Bliar THINK would be the cost of such extensive open ended wars for the UK? What did Bliar THINK would be the human cost of such open ended invasions? What did Blair THINK would be the diplomatic cost of such ongoing wars?
  • What real preparations did the Bliar government make for the invasion of Iraq, in terms of post-conflict management? Under International law the occupying power must provide certain basic facilities once they occupy another country......did Blair as PM fully ensure that his policies complied with the legal responsibilities of an occupying power under International Law?
  • At what stage did the UK government become fully aware of the mass killings of Iraqis whilst under occupation by foreign troops? What role did UK armed forces play in the mass killings.......evidence points to their participation in the mass killings. Who ordered it within the British military? The government must have known about this....and the creation of the 4 million refugees within Iraq, and outside. War crimes trial if they are really feasible would be directed against Bliar in this one single area.......1,300,000 Iraqis since killed, when the occupying powers deliberately dismantled the Iraqi state, and allowed chaos to ensue....often encouraging sectarian conflict, competition for power and even participating in the ethnic strife.
  • What disproportionate role did Israel play in the drumbeat towards war in Iraq? How did that impact British policy? How would have Israel exerted influence through the Jewish lobby in the UK? To what extent did Lord Levy, and the rest of the tribesmen in the FO, and state structure influence British policy towards Saddam's Iraq?
  • What steps did the Bliar government take to prevent this mass killing? Why didn't the Bliar government take clear measures to prevent this from happening as was their responsibility under International law, as an occupying power?
  • Is Bliar Jewish? Which of his ancestors are Jewish? What constitutes real British foreign and military policy, and what constitutes Jewish tribal policy under Bliar?
  • What benefits has Britain derived from the Mesopotamian misadventure? Economic benefits? Diplomatic benefits? Security benefits?

That the Chilcott inquiry will be a whitewash there is no doubt. The composition of the panel, and their general demeanor, lackluster questioning style, their all to apparent deference towards key individuals points in that direction. It was set up to appease the British public into thinking that some form of truth from the horrors of the Iraqi war could/would be found.

Bliars grandstanding, at the platform of the inquiry, wholly unopposed or challenged articulating his past crimes in a matter of fact way, and his future policies clearly indicates to the informed that the Chilcott inquiry was and is a complete sham.

But the real truth is much too unpalatable, so the Chilcott inquiry made up of Bliar junta sympathizers will not seek the real truth which is Bliars governments sheer criminality in conducting an illegal war in Iraq, where 200 odd British soldiers perished for no good reason, and 1,300,000 Iraqis have subsequently died under foreign occupation, all because of a war Saddam clearly wasn't seeking in the first place.







A regime with legitimacy: damned if you do, damned if you don't

From What Really Happened some simple clarifying points, over and above the hype from Israel and its agents of war in the USA:

1. You are not going to get more UN sanctions against Iran: Russia and China won't let this happen.

2. Iran is not building a nuclear bomb.

3. As a signatory to the NNPT, Iran's nuclear program is under IAEA inspection, since 2003, with go anywhere, see anything spot inspections in Iran.

4. IAEA has found neither missing nuclear material, nor any nuclear enrichment beyond the 20% necessary for creating medical isotopes, since they started their work in 2003.

4. To create a nuclear weapon, there must be enrichment of over 90%. A credible delivery system which is reliable, ballistic long distance missiles, and the technology to put the nuclear warhead into the missile.

5. Per the revelations of Mordechai Vannunu in the late 80s, coupled with admissions in statements by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former US President Jimmy Carter, Israel has nuclear weapons.

6. Israel refuses to sign the NNPT, and therefore will not allow inspections of its nuclear facilities.

7. The "rogue nation" here is not Iran, but Israel.

8.................Israel has nuclear weapons, refuses to sign the NNPT, and therefore refuses any IAEA inspections of their nuclear facilities.

I've written about this before, as it is a topical area.

The puppet mullah regime installed by the USA/UK/FRANCE/Israel in 1979 is in a dilemma.

They have allowed the IAEA since 2003, to go any where see anything on the spot inspections in Iran. No nation on earth displays such openness and cooperation with the IAEA, for so long without gaining a conclusive end to such inspections. Only Saddam's Iraq displayed such openness to the IAEA, and UN inspections, but only after being castrated after the 1991 Gulf War............at the end of which Iraq STILL faced an invasion in 2003 based on fraudulent information and more lies from the USA/UK.(Niger Yellow Cake, mobile WMD labs; Saddam ready with his WMD's in 45 minutes; Saddam and "al-Qaeda")

The mullahs dilemma is this. The longer they continue with these inspection by the IAEA, greater the suspicions which will grow that Iran is indeed up to something. The IAEA'S work, subsequent International chatter and inconclusive narrative and reports can be twisted by the relevant people to create suspicion, as happened recently. On the other hand if Iran finally says to the IAEA, "OK you've had enough time to determine whether or not we are indeed following the NNPT guidelines as per our obligations, time you people went"........then the Israelis will scream......"The mullah's are building nuke bombs!"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The IAEA was established by the USA in the 1950's to ensure the safe expansion of nuclear technology around the world. It was to be an International watch dog for the global community, neutrally and objectively carrying out its work of assisting nations around the world with nuclear technology. Noble sentiments which unfortunately as with most great ideas came up against the fundamental problem of human failings. Naturally great powers wishing to spy on other nations should want to fill the IAEA ranks with their "experts", and that their influence would be greater than shall we say, then that of more neutral nations such as Norway.

Consequently the IAEA failed with several obvious and very critical nations which subsequently developed nuclear weapons.

Therefore the IAEA never inspected, detected, highlighted or questioned Aparthied South Africa's nuclear bomb program established with Israel from the 1960's.

Therefore the IAEA never inspected, detected, highlighted or questioned Aparthied Israel's nuclear bomb program established with the help of the UK, France and Norway? from the 1950's.

Therefore the IAEA never inspected, detected, highlighted or questioned Pakistan's nuclear bomb program established from the 1970's.

Therefore the IAEA never inspected, detected, highlighted or questioned India's nuclear bomb program established from the 1960's.

Therefore the IAEA never inspected, detected, highlighted or questioned nuclear bomb "SURGE" programs of a few countries around the world in the present.

Yes you miss a few, but what the heck!

Is the IAEA based in Vienna neutral? One thinks not, ultimately-------yes its all very objective, thorough, scientific, filled with a multi-national team of experts, who use scientific technical jargon rather than rhetoric....., BUT given the above examples, its role very often is to legitimate great power politics in subtle ways, rather than to act as a truly global International organization working for the bests interests of all.

Thats where the casual remarks of the new head of the IAEA comes in that overall biased narrative. After all why can't the IAEA clearly state that after thoroughly inspecting Iran since 2003 with go any where and see anything on the spot inspections the IAEA is finally fully satisfied that Iran is indeed not building nuclear bombs.....................but as yet they haven't and they won't. The IAEA, and only the IAEA have left the door of suspicion slightly open to be twisted by Israel, and its shill agents in the USA, and else where:

"This charge against the IAEA is not without justification. The IAEA played a major role in the continuation of the USraeli instigated UN sanctions against Iraq, sanctions which ultimately destroyed the country and made it more vulnerable to outside aggression. Also, as I have written previously for CounterPunch, in the past few years the IAEA has been under severe pressure by USrael to repeat for Iran what it did in the case of Iraq: namely, to bring about UN imposed sanctions against Iran by reporting it to the UN Security Council for non-compliance of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) agreement. So far, the IAEA has not been able to provide the "smoking gun" that USrael needs to move on Iran. That is, despite numerous "sightings of illegal nuclear activities" in Iran by USraelis and their US-Iraq based "good terrorist" organization (MKO), various visits by the IAEA to the Iranian nuclear facilities, and more intrusive inspections, the IAEA has been unable to prove that Iranian nuclear activity has a military dimension or that Iran has an active policy of developing nuclear weapons. Yet, even though there has been no "smoking gun," the IAEA, under the weight of USrael, is exerting greater pressure on Iran to stop even the kind of nuclear research and development that the country is entitled to and are legally allowed under the NPT." Sasan Fayazmanesh

The IAEA was established by the Eisenhower government in the 1950's to safely regulate the civilian nuclear industry, as more and more countries sought to use nuclear power. Naturally hyper sensitive Israel realized that such an organization could be an excellent cover for espionage work against potentially hostile nations and their peaceful nuclear programs. Thus from the 1950's Israeli intelligence has developed close relations with the IAEA. In fact many of its operatives are Israeli intelligence operatives. The same is true of many Western intelligence agencies, such as Germany, USA, France and so forth:

From Scott Ritters book target Iran

IAEA-Israel Nexus

“Israeli intelligence teams would often travel to Vienna, and rendezvous with IAEA personnel in hotel rooms used as impromptu safe houses. On the issue of Iraq, the Israelis had established a similar level of cooperation with the IAEA’s Iraq Action Team…The relationship involved not only the provision by Israel to the IAEA of intelligence information, but also placing at the disposal of the IAEA the extensive resources of Israel’s intelligence analytical community, where the IAEA could pose question to selected technical experts, or have the results of inspections or other intelligence data reviewed by the Israelis. This relationship…operated with the expressed permission of the Director General… [emphasis added] (p. 49)

"Thanks to the IAEA inspections, the United States (and Israel) had extremely detailed intelligence on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program… (p. 147)

"The IAEA has no moral authority to check Iran’s peaceful nuclear development, when it has done nothing to raise attention to, let alone prevent, Israel’s aggressive nuclear program”

I am saying the IAEA is not merely a nuclear inspections organization, but a covert military intelligence gathering organization which works for the USA/Israel/UK.

That personnel in the IAEA are mainly individuals who work for foreign intelligence agencies--- as shown when Scott Ritter and David Kay later openly revealed after they had finished their work in Iraq, as UN inspectors who worked with an Israeli team of four using fake Australian passports to inspect Iraq's landscape.

Germans Spying for Israel

“Many Germans secretly supported the Israeli position concerning the deed for a preemptive strike. German intelligence agents, operating under economic cover, had been inside Iran for years, often times in support of joint German-Israeli mission objectives…...............So even while German diplomats negotiated in support of an incentives-based approach towards resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis, German intelligence officials secretly hedged their bets towards an American-backed effort to undermine and overthrow the regime of the Mullahs” (pp. 154-155. Target Iran: The Truth about the US plans for regime change )

Military homing devices and other pathfinder equipment used to mark out all strategic and military sites in Iran for a possible military attack as was done against Iraq.


Bolton’s Incestuous Israel Connection

One determinant of the hardline US stance against Iran has been the personal initiative of the former Undersecretary of State, and Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. Ritter writes:

When it came to defining what constituted the national interest, John Bolton, like many of his neoconservative colleagues, seemed to possess a decidedly split personality, especially when it came to maters involving the state of Israel…Bolton has developed a strong relationship with Israel, one that had him undermine official U.S. policy by keeping policy papers critical of Israeli actions from crossing the desk of the Secretary of State as Bolton did early on in the tenure in the administration of George W. Bush, blocking a memo which suggested that Israel had violated American laws with its July 23, 2000, assassination of Salah Shehada, a senior Hamas activist in Gaza City. Israel reportedly used an American-made F-16 fighter-bomber to drop a bomb on a house in the Gaza Strip, killing Shehada and fourteen others (including women and children), and injuring more than 100 others. In his position as undersecretary of State, Bolton has engaged in numerous one-on-one meetings with Israeli officials without getting prior country clearance from the relevant offices within the State Department. Bolton frequently travels to Israel, where he has developed a strong relationship with Israeli intelligence officials, again outside of official bureaucratic channels… (p. 141)

On May 22, 2006, at a B’nai B’rith breakfast meeting in which John Bolton had already spoken, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman declared Bolton to be the sixth Israeli diplomat assigned to the United Nations. Gillerman also noted that if the B’nai B’rith membership, historically unquestioningly pro-Israeli, were counted, the Israeli Mission would in fact be one of the largest at the United Nations. (p. 208)

EU-3 as Chamberlain

German, Britain and France were behaving in a manner that was strikingly similar to the behavior of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 when he backed down over Hitler’s demands over the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. In an effort to forestall another American illegal war of aggression, the Europeans were negotiating with Iran to convince the Iranians to give up a nuclear program that operated demonstrably within the framework of international law. Europe committed to the principle of Iranian legal rights regarding the enrichment of uranium, all the while caving in to pressure from the United States to deny Iran this right. (p. 163)

MeK: The Israel Connection

When Israel’s early attempts to sell the Irani WMD threat failed to gain traction in Washington, despite Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer’s personal lobbying (George Tenet rejected the intel casting doubt on its credibility), the Israelis looked for a new conduit for their intelligence that would “spur America to take that threat posed by Iran [sic] more seriously.”

Sobhani [an Iranian con-artist] and CDI [Committee for a Democratic Iran, an AIPAC spinoff] provided an ideal solution, namely that the Israeli government use Reza Pahlavi as the mouthpiece for telling the world about what the Iranians were up to in the field of nuclear weapons, and in exchange Pahlavi would be given immediate credibility and with it front runner status in the race of those trying to rule Iran post-Mullah. Unfortunately for the Israelis and CDI, Reza Pahlavi balked…Undeterred, [Michael] Ledeen and the CDI turned to the MEK, or more specifically, its political front in the Washington, D.C., the NCRI, as the next best option to bring the Israeli intelligence to center stage. CDI reportedly lobbied the NCRI representative, Alireza Jaferzadeh, to serve as the mouthpiece for presenting the Israeli intelligence to the general public…Israeli intelligence had maintained a relationship with the MEK that dated back to the mid-1990s. (p. xxv)

Thus all Israeli intelligence, most of dubious quality, was presented to the American public, and the rest of the world, through a third-party, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the political wing of Mujahedin-e-Khalq (People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

"But there is a more compelling reason why Iran should not comply with IAEA demands: the body has been pressuring Iran, a country that is a signatory to the NPT and has been following its rules to the letter, under pressure from Israel, a country that hasn’t signed the NPT, posesses a massive thermonuclear arsenal, and is the biggest violator of UN Security Council resolutions. More egregiously, IAEA has been passing the information collected during inspections to the Israeli intelligence (both in the case of Iraq and Iran" Fantonite.org

From Democracy Now

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about similarities or differences you see between the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq and what’s happening now with Iran?

SCOTT RITTER: The biggest similarity that we need to point out is that in both cases no evidence was put forward to sustain the allegations that are being made. Iraq was accused of having weapons of mass destruction programs, reconstituting chemical, biological, nuclear, long-range ballistic missile programs. There was an inspection process in place that had access, full access to the facilities in question, and no data was derived from these inspections that backed up the Bush administration’s allegations. And yet, Iraq was told, it’s not up to the inspectors to find the weapons. It’s up to Iraq to prove they don’t exist. Iraq had to prove a negative. And they couldn’t. We now know that in 1991, Saddam Hussein had destroyed the totality of his weapons programs. There weren’t any left to find, discover. There was no threat.

We now have Iran. It’s alleged to have a nuclear weapons program. And yet the International Atomic Energy Agency, the inspectors who have had full access to the sites in Iran, have come out and said, “Well, we can’t say that there isn’t a secret program that we don’t know about. What we can say, as a direct result of our investigations, there is no data whatsoever to sustain the Bush administration’s claims that there is a nuclear weapons program.” (dubious inconclusive language that incites suspicion from the usual quarters-----and they are at it again in 2010) And yet, the Bush administration once again is putting the onus on Iran, saying, “It’s not up to the inspectors to find the nuclear weapons program. It’s up to the Iranians to prove that one doesn’t exist.” Why do we go down this path? Because you can’t prove a negative. There’s nothing Iran can do that will satisfy the Bush administration, because the policy at the end of the day is not about nonproliferation, it’s not about disarmament. It’s about regime change. And all the Bush administration wants to do is to create the conditions that support their ultimate objective of military intervention.


New IAEA Chief Uses Last Week’s ‘Technical Violation’ to Raise Fears of Iran’s Nuclear Program

Last Week's 'Annoyance' Is This Week's Grave Danger

by Jason Ditz at Antiwar.com

A new report issued by the IAEA today rehashed complaints about what was referred to as a minor, technical violation last week, and declared that it “raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Early last week Iran began enrichment of uranium to 20 percent in an attempt to find a new source of fuel for its Tehran Research Reactor, a US-built reactor which produces isotopes for medical purposes.

Officials at the IAEA last week expressed “annoyance” that Iran had moved forward with the program so quickly, insisting that Iran was obliged to delay the start until changes were made to the safeguards agreement. Iran moved forward with the plan anyhow, in what analysts referred to as a “technical” violation.

The IAEA’s new report, issued by new chief Yukiya Amano, uses only this “technical violation” as justification for its speculation about the intention of Iran’s nuclear program, and the claims about a “nuclear payload for a missile” don’t appear to be backed up by any evidence, seemingly only included for shock value.

Though last week’s report on the technical violation stressed that IAEA officials were “irked” by the move, it seems incredible that Secretary General Amano would use what seems to have been a trivial annoyance to fan the fuels of speculation about a covert nuclear program particularly when he himself confirmed previously that the IAEA has absolutely no evidence Iran was seeking nuclear weapons. It is doubly troubling that such a statement would be issued when Western officials are raising the specter of a military attack against Iran.

Despite the sensational language used in the IAEA statement, Iran continues to enrich uranium mostly at 3.5 percent, with a smaller program at 20 percent. A nuclear payload would require enrichment of above 90 percent. The IAEA has continued to verify that Iran is not diverting any of this uranium to any undisclosed purpose. Today’s announcement, alarmist though it may be, appears to be nothing more than a spite move by the IAEA after Iran thumbed their nose at official procedure, and does not represent any real threat.


read the IAEA report on Iran, rather than the propaganda from the New York Times, and the rest of the usual suspects


Parliamentary expense account scandal.


I wanted to look at this issue, and ponder why it came to the fore particularly now. On the surface this saga, though sad with the image of parliamentarians acting like pigs at the trough abusing their position enjoying perks at the tax payers expense, is very reassuring in the sense that the British state can correct itself, and investigate itself when illegality takes place by elected officials; they don't get a away with it just because of their position.

So the Liberal Democratic system in the UK is kosher and sound.

So the Liberal Democratic system in the UK is kosher and sound at a time of rising unemployment; economic meltdown; self inflicted greed by bankers causing the financial crisis; self imposed illegal shady dodgy wars abroad to maintain the "special relationship" ; turning the state into a bizarre Orwellian Police state that could potentially make the Dear Leader Kim Il Jong envious......and finally to bolster that overall narrative and make sure........ false flag ops under the direction of MI-5 and Tony Blair, the war profiteer, ley preacher of GOD, and special Middle East envoy for peace.

So its good to see MP's getting their comeuppance for charging the public through their expense accounts for such things as a bar of Cadbury's Milk chocolate Bar.......20 pence or is 40 pence, Oi Vey Samuel this is really serious stuff here. Book em Dano......put em under surveillance....create the outcry ........through the daily rag shrill machines........and get the public, not particularly in a good mood, fixated on this subject...............meanwhile whats happening with the East Enders, Jordans bust size, drivers who can't keep their hands on the steering wheel.....and Tiger Woods confession for being a playboy womanizer.

What are the real issues that require sustained focus, and action which turns the tide in the public's favor generally, and reinforces Britain as a true Liberal Democratic State which is accountable and responsive to the public's basic sentiments:

Iraq and Afghanistan wars, with more on the pipeline for Israel.
Now criminality is bad in any shape or form, but we also have to prioritize our focus on illegality and criminality within the state based on the level of harm it can inflict on the wider society. If such on going wars, and more wars to come result in the death of 500 soldiers, 2,000 injured and more daily........then that is a more serious issue in comparison to whether an MP overstepped the limits of his parliamentary perks, because everybody else down the years since 1688, and the Glorious Revolution had been doing it..........I mean Brian, what the fuck are politicians? What perks do they enjoy in the USA, Italy, France or India for that matter? Hell of a lot more than British MPs, so why get all high and mighty about a global phenomenon.....which will resurface in the UK in another shape or form eventually.....lobbies buying MPs, and shady characters entering parliament for all the wrong reasons.

Open ended wars cost money, taxpayers money; a lot more than the MPs had been spending on their expense accounts.......they may cost $8 billion, or $18 billion or $40 billion taking into account all factors. They cost the lives of 1000's upon 1000's of innocent people in desperately poor Third World societies. On going wars in Third World societies damages the UK's reputation abroad.........how do you measure the cost of that in monetary terms? Wars also come home to roost, in the shape of greater security at home, and skewering society along certain undesirable directions. Illegal wars that could potentially be repeated as Blair was advocating at his Chilcott platform.

In this area of on going illegal wars, British governments have not been remotely responsive. British governments led by the executive exclusively decide the fate of the nation.......MPs acting as largely obedient sheep.

Post 9/11 security laws....
New Labor Bliar introduced a whole host of security laws that are directed solely at the average British public within the UK, or when they go abroad. They were introduced on the basis of events in another country, events which one may remark were highly dubious and inconsistent...........these laws need to be abolished, and the security apparatus dismantled. Norway is doing perfectly well without buying into the mantra of GWoT. Obviously Britain would also need to cease participating in foreign wars to reduce the narrative of security, and the enemy at the gate mentality so overused by the pigs at the trough politicians. Britain then can finally become an easy relaxed place, were people go about their daily lives in a normal manner without being suspicious and paranoid about great nothings. Innocent people, of Third World background will then no longer be threatened and tortured for the sake of maintaining false narratives of wars that should never have been...........and perhaps eventually they will be given justice and peace as normal human beings.

The false flag ops.....carried out by MI-5, with the collaboration of foreign states to reinforce the above globalist agenda for a specific country in the Levant, and its specific geo-strategic perceptions and goals, which are wholly disconnected to the UKs true geo-strategic goals in the International arena. The UK is too great a country to be hoodwinked and led by the nose along directions which does not benefit the UK state overall, but for the actions of the agents within the UK, who prioritize Israel's interests over and above the interests of the UK.

Bankers Greed...and the consequences for the country.......British manufacturing has been destroyed since the 1970's through state policy, and the service sector, including the financial sector have become dominant. So be it, this the decision by sections of the enlightened elite based around London. But this unregulated shadowy world based around the "The City" in which they live in makes them greedy and inconsiderate ( like the MP's greed, but in a far far far bigger scale). Brian and I, we do not understand high finance with its complex terms.....so we cannot fathom the level of criminality.....though we are sure it exists....pretty sure.....and as a result of that the economy is in recession, thousands upon thousands unemployed, miserable lives, broken homes, depression, recession......and most intriguingly the government using the taxpayers money to rescue the very same bankers for their mistakes, so that they can continue with their bonus schemes, and so forth.

In light of the very serious crimes above MP's expense account fraud, and Freudian slips pale into insignificance....REALLY.......if you dare think about it.
Should MP's misdemeanors be ignored in this light.......No it shouldn't be, but we must have proportionality of who is committing the greater crime.

It would be a shame if this MP's expense saga was an elaborate ruse to distract the disgruntled masses from focusing and thinking too much about the main issues which concern the UK.