Hubritic Anomaly

Contact Hubris . . .here

I stick it here, that way it's out of MY head.
Politics, War,
Music: Stuff I like
Photos: Stuff I took myself, and stuff I saw and liked
Conspiracies:'There are no conspiracies, it's all in your head'

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Eustace Mullins

suraci - truth in a time of deceit: Truth - Eustace Mullins

The Pogues & The Dubliners - Irish Rover


Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Johann Hari and his Plagarism

Johann Hari - Plagarist, and generally prone to other forms of Journalistic dishonestyJohann Hari - Plagarist,
and generally prone to other forms of Journalistic dishonesty

Johann Hari is a columnist with the London Independent, and has recently been caught Plagarising the words of others and passing them off as his own in various interviews published under his name.

See Here for more details

Johann Hari plagiarism row – in quotes

Extracts from books allegedly inserted into interviews as quotes, that have sparked plagiarism row

This comes as no surprise at all since Mr Hari has long shown a disregard for what some might call 'ethical behaviour' when it comes to his Journalism (such as it is).

I noticed Johann Hari's lack of truthfulness quite a long time ago, and am quite surprised it took other people so long to notice his lack general of candor.

Back in 2003 young Johann Hari had the dubious distinction of being billed as 'Johann Hari, Young Journalist of the Year' whenever his musings are published in the Independent.

Since discovering that Johann was, shall we say, 'economical with the actualite', I have been most skeptical of young Johanns belief in his own writings. I must, to my shame, confess that I have been now operating on the theory that young Johann will scribble 'any old tripe', as long as he receives his 30-pieces-of-silver.

On Monday, April 14, 2003 I wrote the following:

"Johann Hari is a columnist with the London Independent, and has recently observed that:

'we in the press are the least trusted of all British institutions... the number of my friends who assume that we just make up stories - even at a reputable paper such as the Inependent - is startling'

Well all I can say to that Johann, is that your friends know you pretty well then. Seems Mr Hari is not averse to bending the truth when it suits him. Like all good media-whores he never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.

Regular readers of young Johann will recall that he started his 'journalistic' career as as a lowly hack at the New Statesman. One of his first forays into the pubic sphere concerned the use of drugs among the younger generation.

In July 32001 he wrote:

'Another Cambridge (University) May Week has rolled around, and I, like half of Cambridge, celebrated with a few tabs of Ecstasy and the odd line of coke'

Now that must have been a fairly ODD' line of Coke' alright because the rumour is that little Johann has never taken ecstasy in his life.
Apparently, if rumours are to be believed, little Johann had to 'phone a friend' before writing his article in order to obtain a description of it's effects from a users point of view.

If that wasn't bad enough Hari then went on to do an encore for the London Evening Standard where he set out to defend 'the ecstasy I know and love (?)' even going so far as to offer David Blunkett (British Home Secretary at that time) the chance to accompany him to a 'decent club' in order to 'score a tab of ecstasy' Hari then went on to describe the sensations experienced when one is 'loved-up' (luckily he had that friends phone number).

So it was with much scratching of the head that we read this next piece printed in the Independent less than a month ago

'Ecstasy defined the generation of my older siblings, not mine - Ecstasy is OUT!!'

Johann, it seems all those 'tabs' that you so foolishly consumed up in Cambridge have fried your synapses old bean!. Has the memory been effected? What was that about 'tabs of ecstasy and he ODD line of coke'' - and who says drugs don't do any long-term damage - Johann is a living breathing example of 'your brain on drugs' so remember kiddies don't be like Johann - just say no (when offered cash to tell lies to gullible readers)

Johann Hari's lack of acquaintance with the truth has not suffered one bit by his fore-swearing nefarious substances - quite the contrary, it seems to have blossomed. A few weeks after his original ecstasy article he traveled to the G8 conference in Genoa. From there he sent an emotional piece regarding the death of protester Carlo Giuliani.

Take it away Johann -

'On Friday , before the real business of the summit began, the police shot him twice in the head and than ran him over. They killed him, even though he carried no weapon other than a fire-extinguisher. When I saw the scene I couldn't believe so much blood had poured from one body'

Well gee Johann that really must have been a very 'odd line of coke ' you took back there in Cambridge, because according to several witnesses, Mr Johann Hari had hopped into a taxi and high-tailed it out of there long before any trouble started - maybe the death-scene came to him in a 'flash-back' after he returned to his hotel? So much for integrity.

Lately Johann has been doing the rounds on UK TV proclaiming his support for a war against Saddam. The Iraqis want to be bombed - he knows because he's been to see them. 'Last October, I spent a month seeing the reality of life under Saddam. Most of the Iraqi people would hug me and offer 'coded support'' (please come back and bring the bombers with you next time, johann) Jan 10 Indie
amazingly enough Hari had actually visited Iraq as a tourist visiting archaeological sites.

He wrote about it in the Guardian on 3 December 2002. In that article however , he claimed that it was ' very difficult to get Iraqi's to express their feelings (or may the feelings you want them to express, Johann?)... I blundered about asking fairly direct political questions, which caused many people to recoil in horror...Many people asked quite genuinely _'why your Government hate the Arab world'. The only person who eventually offered 'coded' support, was an old man in a market who had visited London in the 1970's 'After much oblique prodding, he said warmly 'I admire British democracy and freedom' He held my gaze 'I very much admire them' he added 'we do not know what is coming. the news we receive here is ...unclear''

Seems straight forward enough but not for our Johann. In an article for the Independent on Feb 15, Hari claimed that Iraqi's had asked him ' When will you come to free us? When will we be able to live again ?'' Since these pleas for bombers to arrive must have struck Mr Hari as newsworthy why didn't he mention them in his earlier Guardian piece?? Could it be that Johann 's friends know him only too well? After all a mans got to earn a living in these dark times.

Is anything you write believable Johann? "

"As you can see, I come not to praise Johann Hari but to demonise him." - Lenin's Tomb

I'm not the only one to notice Johann Hari's lack of honesty:

LENIN'S TOMB - Tuesday, July 24, 2007
"In which I becomes a diverting anecdote" - posted by lenin
It isn't all that worrying that I didn't say the things that Johann Hari thinks I said. Who doesn't sometimes get that treatment? Practically everyone else who is referenced in the article is dealt with in a similarly unfair fashion


On Friday, April 18, 2003, I wrote the following concerning Johann Hari:

"Having read his latest offering entitled 'There will never be a better time to go for the euro' we were left feeling a little mean-spirited. Perhaps, we pondered, we had been far too harsh on young Johann, a chap has to earn a crust after all. He is, we can assure you, considered to be the cream of the crop; 'Johann Hari, Young Journalist of the Year' and his musings are much discussed by other 'bright young things' as a simple search of Google, using the term 'johann hari', will demonstrate :)

We here are rather cynical, as you may by now have noticed. So we couldn't help but dig a little deeper and try to discover the grounds for young Johann's strident championing of the Euro.

Let us firstly examine the Independent. This is a British Daily with few 'stars' in its stable , most people online know it as the home of Robert Fisk, decidedly anti-war war-correspondent.

According to this excellent article by Guardian Media-Correspondent Roy Greenslade

''Are readers of the anti-war Independent overwhelmingly opposed to the war? Is the bulk of the Daily Telegraph's readership standing four-square behind the coalition? What about the people who read the Daily Mirror: do they support its consistent criticism of the Bush-Blair war?
In an attempt to answer these questions, the polling company ICM asked people whether they approved or disapproved of the war and then discovered which daily newspapers each respondent regularly reads.
The results are, I must add, somewhat tentative. The sample size for a couple of titles was small and these should be taken only as indicative. But despite that health warning, which probably affects the Independent more than any other, the figures from this exercise - the first of its kind - are fascinating. ''

As we said the Independent, is considered on-line, to have a basically anti-war stance, mainly because of the articles of Robert Fisk. However things in the real world are not so clear cut. Back to Greenslade in the Guardian again:

''Independent also has more than a third of pro-war readers. Though its sample was small, the editor, Simon Kelner, wasn't in the least surprised at the result. "It's broadly in line with what I'd expect," he says. "Our postbag reflects those sorts of figures too."

He pointed to Friday's letters page, in which there were two letters questioning the validity of the "moral outrage" which informed the front-page article the day before by the Independent's reporter in Baghdad, Robert Fisk. Three other writers congratulated Fisk.

That ratio, Kelner suggests, supports the ICM finding of a 55-38% split. He points out that the response to his pro-war columnist, Johann Hari, is proportionately similar.

The Independent has been one of the major beneficiaries of the war, claiming about 9% extra on its daily sale last week.''

So it appears that the Indie is playing a 2 front game. On one side it is gaining much recognition online as an anti war- publication, but it has the problem that 'Independent also has more than a third of pro-war readers.' Therefore one can conclude that one-third of readers who actually shell out hard cash for its printed equivilant in the real-world, are not happy with the opinions of Fisk, it's main star. Hence the need for someone like Johann - who'll say exactly what the boss wants him to.

The Boss in this case is one Tony O'Reilly, head of an Irish Media group, Independent News & Media, whose worldwide holdings include


* The Independent
* Independent on Sunday
* Belfast Telegraph

Republic of Ireland

* Irish Independent
* Sunday World

South Africa

* 14 newspapers including Cape Argus and Pretoria News

Australia and New Zealand

* 24 daily newspapers including the New Zealand Herald and Queensland Times

A rather impressive list we think you'll agree. Big media brings big problems, however. In this case very big debt problems. According to this Guardian article of April 17, 2000

''The Independent could finally break even next year but only if the advertising market returns to health, its owners said today.''

and this on November 4, 2002

''Independent hit by £16m loss : The Independent and Independent on Sunday slipped further into the red last year, posting a £15.7m loss despite a cost-cutting drive.

The figures are a blow for Sir Tony O'Reilly, the owner of parent company Independent News & Media. When he bought the papers in 1998 he claimed they would break even by 2001.''

The Indie is in deep trouble indeed. Losing money hand-over-fist is the correct expression, I believe.

Things have gotten so bad that poor Slur Tony has had to dig deep into his own pockets in the hope of halting the slide:
O'Reilly props up Independent group
''Irish entrepreneur to make £20m cash injection and sell off British regional titles to cut debt . O'Reilly has agreed to pay around ?30m (£20m) for new shares in the Independent News & Media Group he chairs as part of a ?256m restructuring plan that aims to reduce debts of more than ?1.2bn.

The Dublin-based group has launched a deeply discounted rights issue to raise ?103m in new cash to meet debt obligations that are due later this year. ''

Now the most interesting thing to note here (at least I think it is the most interesting) is that Independent News & Media Group is a Dublin-based group. Dublin being the capital city of that 'most-septic of sceptered Isles', Ireland. Hence the Independent News & Media Group, operates in Euro's and not British Pounds Sterling, which are the currency of the UK. This might indeed cause some problems for O'Reilly if his personal cash is held in Euros. Currency fluctuations have wiped the smiles from the faces of many an obese feline over the last few years. Hence Tony might indeed be very pleased were Britian to adopt the Euro.

Which, I think, brings us back to where we came in - Johann Hari ' Young Journalist of the Year' and his latest offering; 'There will never be a better time to go for the euro'

I ask myself if it's very likely that Fisk would have written such a pleasing article for SIR Tony...."


approx 9 days after writing that last piece, The Independent introduced a pay-for-view system for many of it's articles published on-line, in an effort I suppose to help shore up it's dire financial situation.

I have no idea if this system is still in operation or for how long it may have been in operation. I no longer read mainstream media on a regular basis, having learned my lessons regarding the truthfulness of such media-organs while watching the Iraq war unfold.

since writing that piece, The Independent has been sold by O'Reillly's Independent News Media Group,

Independent Sold: Now Going Free?
The UK’s tenth-placed national newspaper The Independent has been sold to Russian billionaire Alexander Lebedev, as expected, for £1.

The O'Reilly-dominated Independent News Media group itself still has some financial problems, as well as some recent high-profile disagreements between the O'Reillys and another major shareholder Denis O'Brien

Labels: , , ,


Friday, November 26, 2010

Is the Euro finished?

Nigel Farage MEP "The Euro Game Is Up... Just Who The Hell Do You Think You Are? You Are Very Dangerous People"

Famous euroskeptic Nigel Farage (as seen previously here), in just under 4 brief minutes tells more truth about the entire European experiment than all European bankers, commissioners, and politicians have done in the past decade. As we have already said pretty much all of this before, we present it without commentary:

"Good morning Mr. van Rompuy, you've been in office for one year, and in that time the whole edifice is beginning to crumble, there's chaos, the money's running out, I should thank you - you should perhaps be the pinup boy of the euroskeptic movement. But just look around this chamber this morning, look at these faces, look at the fear, look at the anger.

Poor Barroso here looks like he's seen a ghost. They're beginning to understand that the game is up. And yet in their desperation to preserve their dream, they want to remove any remaining traces of democracy from the system. And it's pretty clear that none of you have learned anything. When you yourself Mr. van Rompuy say that the euro has brought us stability, I supposed I could applaud you for having a sense of humor, but isn't this really just the bunker [or banker?] mentality. Your fanaticism is out in the open. You talk about the fact that it was a lie to believe that the nation state could exist in the 21st century globalized world. Well, that may be true in the case of Belgium who haven't had a government for 6 months, but for the rest of us, right across every member state in this union, increasingly people are saying, "We don't want that flag, we don't want the anthem, we don't want this political class, we want the whole thing consigned to the dustbin of history."

We had the Greek tragedy earlier on this year, and now we have the situation in Ireland. I know that the stupidity and greed of Irish politicians has a lot to do with this: they should never, ever have joined the euro. They suffered with low interest rates, a false boom and a massive bust. But look at your response to them: what they are being told as their government is collapsing is that it would be inappropriate for them to have a general election. In fact commissioner Rehn here said they had to agree to a budget first before they are allowed to have a general election.

Just who the hell do you think you people are.
You are very, very dangerous people indeed: your obsession with creating this European state means that you are happy to destroy democracy, you appear to be happy with millions and millions of people to be unemployed and to be poor.

Untold millions will suffer so that your euro dream can continue. Well it won't work, cause its Portugal next with their debt levels of 325% of GDP they are the next ones on the list, and after that I suspect it will be Spain, and the bailout for Spain will be 7 times the size of Ireland, and at that moment all the bailout money will is gone - there won't be any more.

But it's even more serious than economics, because if you rob people of their identity, if you rob them of their democracy, then all they are left with is nationalism and violence. I can only hope and pray that the euro project is destroyed by the markets before that really happens.

Labels: , ,


The Story of Your Enslavement


Emmanuel Goldstein

Winston began reading:

Chapter I
Ignorance is Strength

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.

The aims of these groups are entirely irreconcilable...

Winston stopped reading, chiefly in order to appreciate the fact that he was reading, in comfort and safety. He was alone: no telescreen, no ear at the keyhole, no nervous impulse to glance over his shoulder or cover the page with his hand. The sweet summer air played against his cheek. From somewhere far away there floated the faint shouts of children: in the room itself there was no sound except the insect voice of the clock. He settled deeper into the arm-chair and put his feet up on the fender. It was bliss, it was eternity. Suddenly, as one sometimes does with a book of which one knows that one will ultimately read and re-read every word, he opened it at a different place and found himself at Chapter III. He went on reading:

Chapter III
War is Peace

The splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.

In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one's own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon.

To understand the nature of the present war--for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war--one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. None of the three super-states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. They are too evenly matched, and their natural defences are too formidable. Eurasia is protected by its vast land spaces, Oceania by the width of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Eastasia by the fecundity and industriousness of its inhabitants. Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight about. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. In so far as the war has a direct economic purpose, it is a war for labour power. Between the frontiers of the super-states, and not permanently in the possession of any of them, there lies a rough quadrilateral with its corners at Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin, and Hong Kong, containing within it about a fifth of the population of the earth. It is for the possession of these thickly-populated regions, and of the northern ice-cap, that the three powers are constantly struggling. In practice no one power ever controls the whole of the disputed area. Portions of it are constantly changing hands, and it is the chance of seizing this or that fragment by a sudden stroke of treachery that dictates the endless changes of alignment.

All of the disputed territories contain valuable minerals, and some of them yield important vegetable products such as rubber which in colder climates it is necessary to synthesize by comparatively expensive methods. But above all they contain a bottomless reserve of cheap labour. Whichever power controls equatorial Africa, or the countries of the Middle East, or Southern India, or the Indonesian Archipelago, disposes also of the bodies of scores or hundreds of millions of ill-paid and hard-working coolies. The inhabitants of these areas, reduced more or less openly to the status of slaves, pass continually from conqueror to conqueror, and are expended like so much coal or oil in the race to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, to control more labour power, to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, and so on indefinitely. It should be noted that the fighting never really moves beyond the edges of the disputed areas. The frontiers of Eurasia flow back and forth between the basin of the Congo and the northern shore of the Mediterranean; the islands of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific are constantly being captured and recaptured by Oceania or by Eastasia; in Mongolia the dividing line between Eurasia and Eastasia is never stable; round the Pole all three powers lay claim to enormous territories which in fact are largely uninhabited and unexplored: but the balance of power always remains roughly even, and the territory which forms the heartland of each super-state always remains inviolate. Moreover, the labour of the exploited peoples round the Equator is not really necessary to the world's economy. They add nothing to the wealth of the world, since whatever they produce is used for purposes of war, and the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war. By their labour the slave populations allow the tempo of continuous warfare to be speeded up. But if they did not exist, the structure of world society, and the process by which it maintains itself, would not be essentially different.

The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of DOUBLETHINK, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. At present, when few human beings even have enough to eat, this problem is obviously not urgent, and it might not have become so, even if no artificial processes of destruction had been at work. The world of today is a bare, hungry, dilapidated place compared with the world that existed before 1914, and still more so if compared with the imaginary future to which the people of that period looked forward. In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly, and efficient--a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete--was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, partly because of the impoverishment caused by a long series of wars and revolutions, partly because scientific and technical progress depended on the empirical habit of thought, which could not survive in a strictly regimented society. As a whole the world is more primitive today than it was fifty years ago. Certain backward areas have advanced, and various devices, always in some way connected with warfare and police espionage, have been developed, but experiment and invention have largely stopped, and the ravages of the atomic war of the nineteen-fifties have never been fully repaired. Nevertheless the dangers inherent in the machine are still there. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process--by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute--the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction--indeed, in some sense was the destruction--of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which WEALTH, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while POWER remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.

Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter--set him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call 'the proles'. The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of DOUBLETHINK. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world.

All members of the Inner Party believe in this coming conquest as an article of faith. It is to be achieved either by gradually acquiring more and more territory and so building up an overwhelming preponderance of power, or by the discovery of some new and unanswerable weapon. The search for new weapons continues unceasingly, and is one of the very few remaining activities in which the inventive or speculative type of mind can find any outlet. In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science'. The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty. In all the useful arts the world is either standing still or going backwards. The fields are cultivated with horse-ploughs while books are written by machinery. But in matters of vital importance--meaning, in effect, war and police espionage--the empirical approach is still encouraged, or at least tolerated. The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand. In so far as scientific research still continues, this is its subject matter. The scientist of today is either a mixture of psychologist and inquisitor, studying with real ordinary minuteness the meaning of facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice, and testing the truth-producing effects of drugs, shock therapy, hypnosis, and physical torture; or he is chemist, physicist, or biologist concerned only with such branches of his special subject as are relevant to the taking of life. In the vast laboratories of the Ministry of Peace, and in the experimental stations hidden in the Brazilian forests, or in the Australian desert, or on lost islands of the Antarctic, the teams of experts are indefatigably at work. Some are concerned simply with planning the logistics of future wars; others devise larger and larger rocket bombs, more and more powerful explosives, and more and more impenetrable armour-plating; others search for new and deadlier gases, or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents, or for breeds of disease germs immunized against all possible antibodies; others strive to produce a vehicle that shall bore its way under the soil like a submarine under the water, or an aeroplane as independent of its base as a sailing-ship; others explore even remoter possibilities such as focusing the sun's rays through lenses suspended thousands of kilometres away in space, or producing artificial earthquakes and tidal waves by tapping the heat at the earth's centre.

But none of these projects ever comes anywhere near realization, and none of the three super-states ever gains a significant lead on the others. What is more remarkable is that all three powers already possess, in the atomic bomb, a weapon far more powerful than any that their present researches are likely to discover. Although the Party, according to its habit, claims the invention for itself, atomic bombs first appeared as early as the nineteen-forties, and were first used on a large scale about ten years later. At that time some hundreds of bombs were dropped on industrial centres, chiefly in European Russia, Western Europe, and North America. The effect was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although no formal agreement was ever made or hinted at, no more bombs were dropped. All three powers merely continue to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believe will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for thirty or forty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the almost unsinkable Floating Fortress; but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the telescreens, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated.

None of the three super-states ever attempts any manoeuvre which involves the risk of serious defeat. When any large operation is undertaken, it is usually a surprise attack against an ally. The strategy that all three powers are following, or pretend to themselves that they are following, is the same. The plan is, by a combination of fighting, bargaining, and well-timed strokes of treachery, to acquire a ring of bases completely encircling one or other of the rival states, and then to sign a pact of friendship with that rival and remain on peaceful terms for so many years as to lull suspicion to sleep. During this time rockets loaded with atomic bombs can be assembled at all the strategic spots; finally they will all be fired simultaneously, with effects so devastating as to make retaliation impossible. It will then be time to sign a pact of friendship with the remaining world-power, in preparation for another attack. This scheme, it is hardly necessary to say, is a mere daydream, impossible of realization. Moreover, no fighting ever occurs except in the disputed areas round the Equator and the Pole: no invasion of enemy territory is ever undertaken. This explains the fact that in some places the frontiers between the super-states are arbitrary. Eurasia, for example, could easily conquer the British Isles, which are geographically part of Europe, or on the other hand it would be possible for Oceania to push its frontiers to the Rhine or even to the Vistula. But this would violate the principle, followed on all sides though never formulated, of cultural integrity. If Oceania were to conquer the areas that used once to be known as France and Germany, it would be necessary either to exterminate the inhabitants, a task of great physical difficulty, or to assimilate a population of about a hundred million people, who, so far as technical development goes, are roughly on the Oceanic level. The problem is the same for all three super-states. It is absolutely necessary to their structure that there should be no contact with foreigners, except, to a limited extent, with war prisoners and coloured slaves. Even the official ally of the moment is always regarded with the darkest suspicion. War prisoners apart, the average citizen of Oceania never sets eyes on a citizen of either Eurasia or Eastasia, and he is forbidden the knowledge of foreign languages. If he were allowed contact with foreigners he would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been told about them is lies. The sealed world in which he lives would be broken, and the fear, hatred, and self-righteousness on which his morale depends might evaporate. It is therefore realized on all sides that however often Persia, or Egypt, or Java, or Ceylon may change hands, the main frontiers must never be crossed by anything except bombs.

Under this lies a fact never mentioned aloud, but tacitly understood and acted upon: namely, that the conditions of life in all three super-states are very much the same. In Oceania the prevailing philosophy is called Ingsoc, in Eurasia it is called Neo-Bolshevism, and in Eastasia it is called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-Worship, but perhaps better rendered as Obliteration of the Self. The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosophies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense. Actually the three philosophies are barely distinguishable, and the social systems which they support are not distinguishable at all. Everywhere there is the same pyramidal structure, the same worship of semi-divine leader, the same economy existing by and for continuous warfare. It follows that the three super-states not only cannot conquer one another, but would gain no advantage by doing so. On the contrary, so long as they remain in conflict they prop one another up, like three sheaves of corn. And, as usual, the ruling groups of all three powers are simultaneously aware and unaware of what they are doing. Their lives are dedicated to world conquest, but they also know that it is necessary that the war should continue everlastingly and without victory. Meanwhile the fact that there IS no danger of conquest makes possible the denial of reality which is the special feature of Ingsoc and its rival systems of thought. Here it is necessary to repeat what has been said earlier, that by becoming continuous war has fundamentally changed its character.

In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat. In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious. Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions. Moreover, to be efficient it was necessary to be able to learn from the past, which meant having a fairly accurate idea of what had happened in the past. Newspapers and history books were, of course, always coloured and biased, but falsification of the kind that is practised today would have been impossible. War was a sure safeguard of sanity, and so far as the ruling classes were concerned it was probably the most important of all safeguards. While wars could be won or lost, no ruling class could be completely irresponsible.

But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded. As we have seen, researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police. Since each of the three super-states is unconquerable, each is in effect a separate universe within which almost any perversion of thought can be safely practised. Reality only exerts its pressure through the needs of everyday life--the need to eat and drink, to get shelter and clothing, to avoid swallowing poison or stepping out of top-storey windows, and the like. Between life and death, and between physical pleasure and physical pain, there is still a distinction, but that is all. Cut off from contact with the outer world, and with the past, the citizen of Oceania is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down. The rulers of such a state are absolute, as the Pharaohs or the Caesars could not be. They are obliged to prevent their followers from starving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenient, and they are obliged to remain at the same low level of military technique as their rivals; but once that minimum is achieved, they can twist reality into whatever shape they choose.

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This--although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense--is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.

Winston stopped reading for a moment. Somewhere in remote distance a rocket bomb thundered. The blissful feeling of being alone with the forbidden book, in a room with no telescreen, had not worn off. Solitude and safety were physical sensations, mixed up somehow with the tiredness of his body, the softness of the chair, the touch of the faint breeze from the window that played upon his cheek. The book fascinated him, or more exactly it reassured him. In a sense it told him nothing that was new, but that was part of the attraction. It said what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order. It was the product of a mind similar to his own, but enormously more powerful, more systematic, less fear-ridden. The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already. He had just turned back to Chapter I when he heard Julia's footstep on the stair and started out of his chair to meet her. She dumped her brown tool-bag on the floor and flung herself into his arms. It was more than a week since they had seen one another.

'I've got THE BOOK,' he said as they disentangled themselves.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Mapping the Golden Circle of the Irish Banking, Business and Political Elite

Mapping the cosy Golden Circle of the corrupt
Irish Banking, Business and Political Elite

Download the PDF of this excellent report into how the Golden Circle of Banking, Business and Political elite managed to line their own pockets in the course of causing our current financial crisis (PDF - no login required to download) - (PDF but Requires Login)


A look at the Bondholders of Anglo shows that Goldman Sachs and Rothschilds are listed as creditors. Both Goldman Sachs and Rothschilds have been acting as 'advisors' to the Irish Gov't
during this crisis. - If that's not a criminal conspiracy then what is?

Rothschild Bank AND Goldman Sachs Are Both On The LIST Of Bondholdeers getting U.S. Taxpayer Billions In Irish Bailout
"Of the 80 listed companies only 7 listed pensions and being a cooperative savings institution. Of those only 4 listed churches and unions as their clients, the others could well have been big pension funds. The churches and unions in question were in Germany not Ireland. Those seven companies are amongst the smallest of Anglo Irish's bond holders. I only have figures for four of the seven. The largest, Union Investments of Germany, has a mere €165 billion in assets under management.

The total assets under management which I was able to compile from publicly available figures is €20,871,150,000,000. That is an underestimate because the bond holders who turn out to be Private and Swiss banks don't publish any figures. So Anglo Irish's 'bond holders' hold and invest MORE than 20.8 trillion euros. Guido lists those bond holders as holding between them 4 Billion euros in Anglo Irish bonds.

Now, in my opinion both figures are likely to be wrong. Certainly my figure is a large underestimate. But taking them at face value Anglo Irish would account for one 5000th of the total assets being managed by all the bond holders. So would even a total default by Anglo Irish cause that much, let alone systemic, pain and risk? Why are the 'Bond holders' and the Irish government so concerned that the Irish people be forced to take the loss and pay the debts for them?

Now lets look at the other side of the equation, at Ireland itself. Well Ireland's GDP before the crash, in 2008, was ... drum roll please... €207 billion. Or 0.207 trillion.

SO.... on one side we have Ireland whose bond holders, its people, have between them a total GDP wealth of 0.207 trillion euros. Who are being FORCED, against their will, to pay Anglo Irish bank's debts to its bond holders, who between them hold 20.8 Trillion euros. The people of Ireland are paying to, and protecting the wealth and power of, people who have 100 times more wealth!

So where do these wealthy bond holders live and work?

Germany has the most with 15 of the bond holders. Who between them hold 5.3 trillion euros.
France is next with 10 bond holders. Who have about 4 trillion to keep them warm.
Britain is third with 9 who have around 3 trillion.
The Swiss have 6 but who have about 8.5 trillion.
America has only three and hold only a trillion.

Other nations include, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Holland Finland, Norway, Sweden, Poland, South Africa and Italy.

All these figures are very rough. The figure for Switzerland is certainly under because Private Swiss banks just don't publish figures. What we can say for sure, figures or no figures, is these are not banks investing widow's pensions or orphan's pennies.

So who are they? Well many of the bond holders are privately held banks, which list their activities as asset management for off-shore, non-resident and high value individuals. To give you an example, one of the private banks is EFG Bank of Luxembourg. EFG stands for European Financial Group which is the third largest private bank group in Switzerland. It manages over €7.5 trillion in assets. It is 'mostly', 40%, owned by Mr Spiro Latsis, son of a Greek shipping magnate. He also owns 30% of Hellenic Petroleum. His personal fortune is estimated to be about $9 Billion."

The cost of housing here was the biggest reason for the large wage bills - According to the OECD. ( - I have lived in Germany and the UK - in Germany the cost of living is much less than here, in large part due to rent-control and proper tenants rights. the main reason for the high cost of living here was the cosy property speculating cartel, who financed Fianna Fáil - a big merry-go-round, with the money going in in the tent at the Galway races in order to come out again at the other end in tax-breaks for both developer and speculators, including the average-joe who bought a second house thinking they could sit on their arses while the tenants paid the mortgage. These same greedy tosspots were the arseholes that voted Fianna Fáil back in again last time.

Fianna Fáil represents the Bankers and the property developing classes etc - they were the ones corrupting the political process. Fianna Fáil are scum - I'll grant that - but they're a servant of even bigger scum - scum you never get to hear about because they manage to keep their names out of the papers and use the likes of Harney, Bertie, McDowell (remember him?) Cowen and Lenihan to do their dirty work.

The Irish people are soon going to find out the hard way that we don't live in a democracy - we live in something that calls itself a democracy but what sort of democracy is it when no matter who you vote for it always ends up the same - there's enough evidence of that right now - every Major political party in this country is lining up to pass that economy-destroying budget. The treacherous Green Party are trying to pull a fast one by pretending they are doing the country some good by 'demanding' an election - a useless election AFTER everyone of the political scumbags votes to pass that budget. That way the new Gov't gets to pretend it gives a damn but it's hands are tied - they will turn around at every opportunity and say 'Not our fault - It wasn't our budget'

Memo to Ireland- "Tell the EU and the IMF to shove it"

So let's look at Ireland and the so called "bail-out" of the country. Which is NOT a bail-out of the nation. It is just another bank bailout.

large excerpt-
This is a black day for Ireland. The Irish people will now face a decade or more of grinding poverty and depression thanks to their venal leaders. As soon as the ink dries on the IMF loans, the second occupation of Ireland will begin, only this time there won't be armored cars and Paramilitaries in fatigues, but nerdy-looking bureaucrats trained in the art of spreading misery. In fact, the loans haven't even been signed yet, and already IMF officials are urging the government to cut jobless benefits and the minimum wage. They're literally champing at the bit. They just can't wait to get their hands on the budget and start slashing away.

And don't believe the hype about European unity or saving Ireland. My ass.
This is about bailing out the banks. The bondholders get a free ride while workers get kicked to the curb. Here's a clip from the Financial Times that spells it out in black and white:

"According to data compiled by the Bank of International Settlements, the three largest creditors to the Irish economy at the end of June...were Germany to the tune of €109bn, the UK at €100bn and France at €40bn. These sums amount to 2 per cent of France’s gross domestic product, 4.5 per cent of Germany’s GDP, and 7 per cent of British GDP."

It's useless to pretend we live in a democracy when the people are so easily fooled by the media into turning their rage onto low-paid civil servants such as Teachers and Nurses. This time last year there was a witch-hunt organised by the Political and Banking classes against the low-paid civil-servants, in order to distract the foolish electorate from the Criminal Bailout of the banks and the rampant criminality of the Banking-Property Speculating classes in general. The media all marched in Lock-step behind them writing crap about how teachers and nurses are what's causing the ruin - pure nonsense - and the majority of the idiotic Irish Electorate allowed themselves to be fooled AGAIN - how many times is that now?

The current agenda to drive down the minimum wage is more evidence of this rush to keep the citizens subjugated because I for one will never be convinced that the min wage of €8.65 per hour threatened our balance of payments. But by reducing peoples ability to save means it will increase their need to borrow to make up for the shortfall in the standard of living. I can assure you if you are unfortunate enough to have to live on the now 7.65/hr, it could mean the difference between going hungry or not before the next pay check. - and once again the Financial/Banking and Property Speculating classes are using this as a distraction from the real problem - the mountain of their debt which they have ordered their Political servants (Theirs NOT ours) to pile onto our shoulders.

Taking your eye off the ball at a time like this is fatal - do not allow yourselves to be distracted by Media-Generated witch-hunts. The Media are the mouthpieces of the Banking and Political classes - all they ever do is repeat the message... the are told to disseminate - they keep a few guys like Fintan O'Tooles and Gene Kerrigan around to give the apppearence of objectivity and even-handedness but if you go back and look at how they have reported events over the past 2 years you can see that all they were doing was repeating Gov't Spin.

Yes there are problems with high-paid civil-servants, I'm not denying it - but it's feckin small potaotes compared to the REAL issues - deal with the major problems first THEN move onto the minor ones - remember - TROUSERS First - THEN shoes!


There's plenty of proof that both Goldman Sachs (which some say are a front for Rothschilds) and Rothschilds themselves, are involved in a criminal conspiracy with the Irish Political and Banking classes (who caused this mess in the first place)
  1. Anglo Bondholders Advising Government on Dealings with Anglo Bondholders
  2. Goldman Sachs Involved In Anglo Irish Bank Bailout Shenanigans
  3. Rothschilds controlling NAMA?
  4. Ghosts in the Irish Financial Machine - NAMA: deliberate entrapment into eternal Debt-slavery

  5. Anglo Irish bank Bondholders - Goldman Sachs and Rothschilds

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

eXTReMe Tracker