I presume that serial killers become addicted. The really big killers, like Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot appear figures divorced from humanity. I really do find it hard to know what to make of Tony Blair. Universally execrated for fabricating the evidence to attack Iraq, apostle of war everywhere, Israel’s most ardent supporter, I used to think the desire for personal wealth – which his murderous career has indeed brought – was his primary motivation. But with his latest cheerleading for yet more wars, it seems he is indeed one of those who, having thrown off conventional morality in favour of homicide, just wants to go on and on with it.
For Bliar, the desire for killing will never stop.
Thanks for reminding Canspeccy of the facts, Ed Davies. Indeed, one might wonder why the US Congress would see fit solemnly to declare war on Germany, houra after Hitler himself had personally declared war on the USA.
Now we know: so that people like Canspeccy, finding a link to “US declaration of war on Germany”, would think that it happened that way round.
The great irony is that Hitler showed far greater loyalty to his ally than the USA to Britain. Most of the Nazis – probably including Hitler – didn’t think very highly of the Japanese (who were decidedly not Aryan), but nevertheless when the Japanese attacked the USA he immediately backed them up.
Contrast that with the USA, which remained steadfastly neutral for the first two years and three months of WW2, watching calmly while the Germans conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece… and reached the Moscow tramlines. The Americans, contrary to what they will often tell you nowadays, had no problem standing by with arms folded during the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz. They did nothing to help us, except to sell us whatever we wanted and they could spare – for ready cash till Britain was bankrupt, and for military technology, overseas bases, and credit thereafter.
How about calculated sociopath with an OCD streak towards self grandisement, a person who flagrats with those who earn billions through arms manufacture and who keeps himself in the frame by using the media dn his past to sound the horn, with an armsfair circus at full boil, he is a dangerous charlatan that needs removing, not unlike an ulcerated pustula, urgently!
Sheitan’s latest campaign to get Syria and Iran and act as the announcer. aborition of this smiling crusader, but its was long in the coming, he has talked this over with Obama and Netanyahu, this is all planned and part of our desperate attempts to usurp what left on earth before others can control it.
Tony Blair should not be able to use mental instability as an explanation, he has lied to Parliament and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, in that he had much in common with Churchill, he who was regularly haunted by the black dog, drank copiously and was the first down the cellar, a petrified man who had genuine reasons for his behaviour.
But Bliar could also be a reincarnation of bomber Harris, who, regardless of how many lives it costs, was the first to use carpet bombing as a psychological tool to turn civilians against their rulers, who killed thousands of innocent civilians in firestorms across Hamburg and Dresden and got honoured for it with a statue.
This mornings interview with Humphrey was chilling, he is obviously the fog horn that starts the melee, because Bahrains bloody clampdown on its Shia populus, goading Iran into action, did not really work.
All this off course at the best possible time, when the anniversarry of 9/11 is coming round, a perfect time to use the memmories of the past to justify another campaign. Just as Saddam Iran will be called a supporter of Al Quaeda and the Taliban, the later is probably true, but we all know the real reasons. It is that Iran is not satisfied with being paid in chocolate money for its saffron and oil, that it is calling for a new world currency, or a reserve currency, and its not alone, just as Saddam did. The nuclear issue is just an easy point to make.
TW said:
*
“one might wonder why the US Congress would see fit solemnly to declare war on Germany, houra after Hitler himself had personally declared war on the USA.”
Hitler did not declare war on the US. He simply pointed out that under the Tripartite Agreement of September 27, 1940 Germany was obliged to join with Italy to defend its ally Japan.
*
Hitler accused President Roosevelt of waging a campaign against Germany since 1937, blamed him for the outbreak of war in 1939 and said he was planning to invade Germany in 1943. That seems a fair summary of the case.
*
Hitler wanted war neither with Britain nor with the US. He was intent on an Eastern empire and was ready to leave his “English cousins” in possession of their overseas empire. It was Chamberlain’s wish to see Germany expand eastward to create a tri-partite Europe: a diminished Russia, a German central European empire and an Anglo-French dominated Atlantic block in Alliance with the US, which is about what we have now.
Vronsky is correct, there is nothing wrong with Blair’s mental apparatus. He is the most astute British politician of his generation. But that does not mean he is a man of great intelligence or originality. To understand what he does, you have to understand what ideas by which he lives. In foreign policy he is committed to the extinction of the nation state and the creation of the New World Order, the policy outlined publicly in 2002 and before by his foreign policy adviser Robert Cooper.
*
The thing is, if you don’t like what Blair is doing, you need to formulate an alternative position. And what alternative is there? Maintenance of the old system of sovereign nations, appears to be the only option.
*
So stop making silly jokes about Blair’s name or brain. Just make up your minds. Do you support Blair’s policies of multiculturalism, the free flow of people, capital and goods, the destruction of Britain as a nation state, i.e., a unique racial, cultural and religious entity, leading to the creation of a global system where the only democracy consists in your right of consumer choice, or do you support the old system of possibly democratic sovereign states — the system under which the people of Europe have lived since the dark ages.
“democratic sovereign states — the system under which the people of Europe have lived since the dark ages.” Can Speccy.
.
Eh??? Since the Dark Ages??? What utter nonsense. The usual supremacist guff.
“a unique racial, cultural and religious entity” Can Speccy.
.
Same old, same old.
How typical for a Western “progressive” to use as an example of the murderer ONLY official foes of the Western imperialism.
What about Churchill? He was a big time murderer and torturer. Was he a psycho? Or was he JUST an imperialist ruler? Just like Blair, just like EVERY USA perz or French prez, or UK PM?
If some of them murdered a bit less than average, it was NOT because they were better, only because they had less opportunity.
Imperialism means grand larceny, and usually people are not happy with being robbed, so imperialism means also mass murder. Welcome to the REAL world, not imperialist PR one.
It’s difficult not to be personal about Blair. I listened this morning to his skilled defusing and evasion of critical questions on Today with an depressing sense of having been here many times before – though I also thought Humphreys was under-prepared. Most major Blair speeches and interviews are plausible superficially but crumble when subject to close scrutiny. His training as a barrister allied to his political sensitivity to wider audiences (including those in the media and the USA) mean he’s the lawyer you would choose to represent you on a difficult case, especially when “sincerity” and “responsibility” are needed to defend the indefensible before a jury.
The questions that matter are not Blair’s psychology or the reasons why he came to his foreign or domestic policies preferences (whether in the service of his Christian beliefs or his personal interests) but how others were persuaded to suspend their critical judgement. It was not Blair who decided to support the USA in Iraq but the House of Commons. Better to see him as exemplifying a variant type of demagoguery, one suited to a democratic but adversarial political and legal system and nourished by a culture that places trust in consumer materialism and its hidden persuaders.
Blair has been a high-risk player who manipulated a low risk culture – the UK civil service and the post-Thatcher Labour party– to serve his purposes.
[Mod: Trimmed, offensive]
*
I said “possibly” democratic states.
*
To ridicule that is to assert that the 1945 Labour Government of the UK that brought independence to India was not democratic and did not express the democratic will. Bollocks.
*
[Mod: personal, offensive remarks removed] Sorry but what you want in Europe is precisely what Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term, called genocide.
*
But this is a diversion, like Craig’s ludicrous post, to distract attention from what is really going on.
*
Think about it. What is the alternative to the New World Order? The system of possibly democratic sovereign states that existed in Europe since the dark ages. There’s not other apparent option
*
And what is Blair’s goal? Destruction of the nation state and creation of the global empire controlled by the money power. So if, like SS, you want to call anyone in favor of the democratic nation state a racist, fine, but remember, you’re putting yourself on the same side as Tony Blair.
*
This is what all the silly name calling about Blair is supposed to conceal. In reality, you’re on his side. LOL.
“Blair has been a high-risk player who manipulated a low risk culture – the UK civil service and the post-Thatcher Labour party– to serve his purposes.”
*
Good point Iain. But let’s focus on what Blair’s real purposes are, then we can see who is on who’s side.
Donno Darko is a shit film. The comparisons don’t stand up. I don’t think you know very much about politics or history or, if you have read the odd thing, your imagination is either deficient inherently or it needs more practice. Craig Murray knows this as well, but he likes to stir up controversy so the threads increase on his blog. I really should know better than to bother reading the nonsense that some, most, write it but I am as unemployed and as intelligent as Craig so for some reason I join in even though reading idiotic statements from someone I don’t know, who is a probably a teenager or something, makes me want to go and lie down. I suppose it is interesting how much paranoid conspiracy theory, anti this and that bullshit there is on the web.
Canspeccy
“To ridicule that is to assert that the 1945 Labour Government of the UK that brought independence to India was not democratic and did not express the democratic will. Bollocks.”
In 1945 UK was ruling millions of people all over the world WITHOUT any representation. Labor Government of 1945 was about as much “democratic” as a Rhodesian one. And, by the way, Indians brought their independence by THEMSELVES, UK tried its best to stop it, but failed. But I suppose for imperialists it does not really matter. And then Canspeccy has a nerve to speak about racism and lies 🙁
“Imperialism means grand larceny, and usually people are not happy with being robbed, so imperialism means also mass murder. Welcome to the REAL world, not imperialist PR one.”
*
Lidia, excellent point.
*
But you may be confusing the victims with the perpetrators. It is the Western nations that are being robbed and destroyed by the project of the NWO, as much as any other, although the means of depopulation in Iraq may have been more violent that the psychologically imposed genocide in Europe.
*
In particular, one needs to be careful in distinguishing between the people of any nation and the leadership.
*
You mention Churchill, but he did not become PM of the UK by popular assent and the first time the people had a voice in the matter (1945) they kicked him out of power. But in any case, as the discussion here reveals, the people of the UK for most part haven’t a clue what they are voting for or what the real issues are. Mostly, if opinion here is anything to go by, they’d vote for there own extermination if it were put to them in an appropriate package. In fact there well on their way there now. Two point seven million immigrants in London and millions of kids born to foreign born mothers.
*
London is no longer and English city, as poor dumb liberal John Cleese just noticed. LOL
yes, sure, it is poor little Westerners who are victims of imperialism – the same imperialism who let them participate in its grand larceny – from Africa, America, Asia. Peoples of colonies and neocolonies are NOT victims, or they do not matter. One more time, to speak about racism… The same as Zionsits are whiling here how they get no more their righteous portions of robbed from Palestinians and even call their whining “protest”.
Canspeccy, I hope you are young enough to learn and eventually know better, but I am not holding my breath. How right was Marx: “their social being …determines their consciousness” Imperialists are simply unable to see how ugly imperialism is – they are a part of it. SOME could come out of it, but only a small part. But fear you not, more than ever I am sure that imperialism’s days are near end.
Ha! You’re a Commie, eh Lidia. Well that explains your love of totalitarian global governance, even if it is by the money power.
I do not give a damn about Churchill being elected by Brits or not. He was a ruler of a many people who were NOT Brits, so it does not matter – he was an imperialist ruler, and no better and no worse than his Labor rivals. I admit that I hate him especially strong , but it is only me.
Hm,
Canspeccy is even more helpless than I thought.
The Parliament of England that emerged in the 13th century was a democratic institution. Learn some English history. Try David Hume, History of England, unabridged.
.
[Mod: edited to remove offensive comments]
Notice, Canspeccy, that your personal insults of other commenters have been edited out. If you don’t put them in, I won’t edit your comments. Don’t give me too much work or I’ll just click the “Trash” button. In my opinion, little would be lost.
.
Lidia, I left Canspeccy’s “commie” remark unedited; I’m being lenient towards him and taking it as lighthearted. Welcome aboard!
Other Mod:
*
God, how many mods does CM have? Who pays them?
*
Anyway what insults are you talking about. I suggested [Ruth] was a paid war propagandist, but that was only after she insulted me first. She called me an “intel agent”, that was a while ago, it’s true, but I was simply returning the compliment. Clark had evidently forgotten the earlier exchange, when he commiserated with [Ruth] for my rudeness.
*
I don’t think I insulted anyone else, at least not without reason. SS deliberately and dishonestly misquoted me. I naturally responded sharply.
*
But cut out whatever you want. I am always puzzled by this site. Is it just a place for very confused naive liberals who cannot see what is before their own eyes or is it a NWO propaganda site. I’ve tried to debate that issue on this thread, but there are few takers. Why? It seems clear to me that Tony Blair is a NWO advocate, either from conviction or because it pays. Either way, heaping insult upon him as CM and others here have done seems pointless unless it is a means to distract attention from what Blair is all about.
*
Now cut that out and I’ll maybe have a better idea of what this site is about.
.
[Other Mod: diminutive nickname corrected. You’re giving me excess work, Canspeccy]
Oh, I see Other Mod has not deleted my remark about the English Parliament, s/he has edited it, but not in a transparent way. I think that amounts to distortion. Why not delete the entire comment? Then at least I won’t appear to be misrepresenting myself.
Repost it yourself without the insults; I’m not getting paid, and if I was it wouldn’t be by you. If you want the edited version deleted, ask. If you want anything else of yours deleted, specify it clearly.
.
There’s a simple rule. You can criticise the content, but you can’t insult the contributors. Suhayl Saadi called your content “supremicist guff”. You called Suhayl Saadi a racist liar. Thus, you suffered moderation and he didn’t. Geddit?
In all humility, Other Mod, I would be glad if you will tell me what is the difference between an advocate of “supremacist guff” and a racist, and if there is none, perhaps you will acknowledge that I merely returned Saadi’s insult (although the terms I used were, in my view justifiable). As for calling Saadi a liar, he deliberately misquoted me. So what is the difference between misrepresentation and lying?
*
More importantly, though, I would like to know what is “supremacist guff” in pointing out that Tony Blair is a globalist imperialist and that the alternative to Balir’s globalism is nationalism, and that if you are not for Tony Blair’s programme of ever expanding empire through voluntary assimilation or forced submission, which was spelled out by Blair’s foreign policy adviser Robert Cooper in 2002, then what can you be for other than the continuation of the age-old system of sovereign states?
*
Or put that another way, if you are against the age-old system of sometimes democratic sovereign states, how can you not be for Tony Blair’s program of global empire with its implicit object of destroying the ancient nations of Europe, and elsewhere, with their unique racial, cultural and religious characteristics?
*
If there is a third way, no one here has mentioned it.
Tom Welsh: The great irony is that Hitler showed far greater loyalty to his ally than the USA to Britain. Most of the Nazis – probably including Hitler – didn’t think very highly of the Japanese (who were decidedly not Aryan), but nevertheless when the Japanese attacked the USA he immediately backed them up.
Contrast that with the USA, which remained steadfastly neutral for the first two years and three months of WW2, watching calmly while the Germans conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece… and reached the Moscow tramlines. The Americans, contrary to what they will often tell you nowadays, had no problem standing by with arms folded during the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz. They did nothing to help us, except to sell us whatever we wanted and they could spare – for ready cash till Britain was bankrupt, and for military technology, overseas bases, and credit thereafter.
.
This is really not true at all. In fact it is pretty much nonsense. The war provoked furious debate within the US between the isolationist America First Committee which didn’t want to get involved in the war and saw no obligation to given that they didn’t have treaty commitments (unlike, for example, Germany to Japan), whereas the interventionists were led by Roosevelt himself. As you may or may not know Charles Lindbergh led the isolationist wing and argued that there were three groups within the US who were trying to drag it to war and he blamed Roosevelt’s own political wing, the British and, of course, the Jews. Of course it was Lindbergh who had had a lot of admiration for Hitler’s Germany and those were the people who were arguing for non-intervention in World War II.
.
I always find it amusing that of all the anti-US memes that pop up from time to time this is one of the most enduring and it is usually propagated by those who believe the US sticks its nose into other peoples’ business far too much. When it comes to World War II, however, the US had no moral right to be neutral (unlike, say, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland etc…)
.
I’m rather glad they weren’t, the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and then Hitler’s idiotic declaration of war on the US permanently ended the America First platform who, having decisively lost the argument decided to concoct conspiracy theories about how Roosevelt MUST have known and/or engineered Pearl Harbor attacks.
Canspeccy: “Hitler did not declare war on the US.”
.
[Mod: innocuous jibe removed for sake of consistency.]
.
“And in fact, many white war deaths are hotly disputed. See for example the controversy about the alleged starvation of one million German POW’s after WW2.”
.
It didn’t happen. There was most certainly hunger in Europe after the war and civilians were often fed first but the charge made by a Canadian novelist that Eisenhower ordered the systematic starvation of a million German POWs is a only believed, or rather propagated, by Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis who want to create spurious moral equivalences.
.
“The Parliament of England that emerged in the 13th century was a democratic institution. Learn some English history. Try David Hume, History of England, unabridged.”
.
It’s a largely democratic institution now, but no way was the Parliament of Henry III or Edward I in any sane sense of the word “democratic”. It was merely a place where some posh nobs from the shires could feel they had a say in the running of the country provided they hand over the cash that they gained from taxing their serfs. And why was this source of revenue necessary? So that the kings could go off on Crusades or hammer the Scots etc… In fact, as late as James I, the king was telling parliament that he reigned supreme by divine right and the only real purpose of parliament was to give him money, something which led to his successor getting his head lopped off. This is common knowledge CanSpeccy where on Earth do you read these fantasy histories? Do you just simply make them up?
.
You do cite David Hume as a source but David Hume was writing in the eighteenth century. What level of suffrage do you suppose existed back then?
@Angrysoba
Yes it did happen. Try “Other Losses” by James Bacque for just one book about it. There are others, but it’s far too late for plodding around the net.
Annie O’Nimmus: “Yes it did happen. Try “Other Losses” by James Bacque for just one book about it.”
.
Thank you. I am aware of the book which is why I referred to “the charge made by a Canadian novelist” who happens to be James Bacque.
.
The charge being made is that Eisenhower presided over a campaign of deliberately starving to death one million German POWs post-World War Two and it is a charge that no historian of the era endorses. If you could provide evidence which doesn’t source back to James Bacque’s book I would be interested. But as far as I know the consensus of historians is that James Bacque wasn’t a careful researcher and made a lot of errors in writing his book.
I thought that ref. to German POWs was to those killed by Stalin, but obviously not.
.
The only alternative to international fundo capitalism is not fascism/nazism (heavy or lite) or some variant thereof.
Suhayl Saadi: I thought that ref. to German POWs was to those killed by Stalin, but obviously not.
.
Well, it is true that the Soviet Union took a particularly brutal revenge on the Germans and I have read statistics that say two million German women were raped by the Soviet Union’s troops. I don’t know how true those figures are but I certainly think there were many German soldiers who would count on getting better treatment from US/UK soldiers if they surrendered to them rather than the Soviets. And that, somewhat circuitously brings us back to the allegations that Eisenhower deliberately starved to death a million soldiers. The numbers of German soldiers surrendering to the US/UK forces was much larger than that expected which meant that it was very difficult to feed the number of POWs who turned up expecting a place to be held with full rations. It did result in low rations for POWs, on top of the fact that many of the camps were of pretty abysmal standards and also that many of the food supplies that were sent to the German POWs were redirected to civilians. Things were bad for the German POWs just as they were bad for almost all the losing countries in that awful conflagration – and for some of the victors too. But the specific charge that Eisenhower or anyone else determined that German POWs would be forcibly starved to death and the charge that this led to one million deaths is not taken seriously by any historian of that era that I know of.
Yes, Germans and others tried their hardest to surrender to the US/UK armies and not to the Red Army. Also, Soviet POWs, on return to the USSR, were also massacred by Stalin because he thought there might be spies among them. Not to say that there weren/’t abuses by the US/UK armies, there were, but not on a mass, systemic basis. There is a rumour that some Italian POWs were summarily shot in Paisley, Scotland. I’ve never been able to find out much more about this shameful episode, but the Italian Scots know about it. But of course, most German and Italian POWs in the UK were relatively well-treated. Some stayed and and married locally.