Blogging from the Bog

   The European Union has promised to give the corrupt government of Sudan €400 million for "humanitarian aid".  It was only a year ago that Sudan’s Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Ahman Muhammed Harun, was indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity for funding and arming the Janjaweed militia who in turn brutalised Sudanese citizens in Darfur.  Harun is currently a fugitive from justice as the Sudanese government refuses to act on the ICC warrants for arrest.  Yeah Europe, keep sending them money!

   Two days later a rebel group, the JEM, attacked government forces in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, in a bid to overthrow the despots.  What the hell is the European Union doing, in our name, propping up this corrupt and criminal gang who have caused all the trouble in Darfur that the EUFOR Army is risking their lives to control?

   I can’t wait til June so I can vote yes for more of this feckin’ nonsense!

 Harun

   A tip o’ the hat goes out to the blog Eurealist for this post about the secret European Union plans to establish a diplomatic corps and create their own embassies at 160 locations throughout the world.  The UK Telegraph story goes on to say that these arrangements are being "held behind closed doors" for "fear of political fallout" that may erupt prior to the Irish referendum on the 12th of June.

   The Brussels Journal has reported that "a secret Interior Ministry" will be developed only after the Treaty is voted upon in Ireland.

   On March 16th the Sunday Post online ran a story about corruption in the ranks of the officials within the EU Parliament.  The article quotes Brian Cowen, Irish Minister of Finance and soon to be the leader of our government, as saying, "For those who believe in a democratic  Europe, Yes is the only way to vote.", and then further goes on to describe the secret investigation and the internal audit "cover up".

   Benita Ferrero-Waldner is the European Commissioner for External Affairs who made a speech to the College of Europe, Bruges, on the 7th of April in which she described the need to implement the Lisbon Treaty and that "But of course what you don’t know, what indeed none of us yet know, is exactly how this will work out in practice."

   Does the question "What else don’t we know?" pop into anyones mind?

   Ten days after the 13th annual Iranian Oil Show, the government, led by President Ahmadinejad, has announced that it will no longer be accepting US dollars when selling it’s oil.  Deals struck before and during the show have solidified Iran’s position on the global stage as the 4th largest oil producer, while the Oil Minister called the US dollar "worthless paper" and announced his country will be dealing in Euro and Yen for future sales.  This news does not bode well for the weakening US economy nor will it help with Ireland’s celtic meltdown.

   This move comes as no great surprise as it allows Iran to sidestep trade sanctions, imposed by the US, over it’s nuclear ambitions and will give Iran a "bonus benefit" from it’s oil sales while divesting itself of weak dollars.  Trade and investment projects with countries like India, Russia, and Venezuela will guarantee Iran’s influence in global oil markets.  Chavez, of Venezuela, has already toyed with the idea of replacing petro-dollars with euros and his close association with Iran could embolden his attempts to renew a euro-petrol policy.

   Iran has oil and lots of it, what they don’t want is dollars, will they convince OPEC to dump the US dollar too?

   Nearly 40 years ago Alvin Toffler wrote a sociological discourse in the form of a book called Future Shock, and although I read it some time back with only casual interest, these two themes have stuck with me:  data overload, and too much change too soon.  What way will our lives, cultures, and societies deal with and change during this age of informational and technological onslaught?  What role does affluence, globalisation, and the internet play in the evolution of our species?

   We like to consider ourselves social creatures; but, how social are we becoming?  Where once we banded together in groups or clans who shared the tasks, joys, and disappointments of day to day life we have now become independent, isolated, and intolerant of others.  It is becoming evident by recent news that we cannot handle stress, financial pressures, or misfortune without acting out in violence and abuse or some other offensive/defensive manner.

   The family is of course the basic social group or clan and instead of building on that solid structure it seems to be diminishing in importance to this new human.  Are the successes of Social Networking sites the proof that there is a void in our need to belong? somewhere, anywhere?  I wonder.  Once we have acquired some wealth, or in the process of seeking it, we tend to leave those who have nurtured us, taught us, and shared our burdens.  Do we spend the rest of our lives in search of that sense of belonging? 

   A wealthy, well travelled, and high-tech populace is growing on all continents and within all cultures.  We can communicate instantaneously to all regions of the earth and physically travel to any point on the globe within 24 hours.  We may take these marvels for granted today; but, this is only a recent phenomenon in human history.  Toffler’s future is our present.  How will we change or adapt to handle these changes?  Euro Yank offers the theory that Eastern and Western cultures are fundamentally different in that the West focuses on the independence of man while the East is more concerned with the interdependence of man.  Will one culture surpass the other in it’s ability to adapt?  Or, will the cultures of the world become more homogenous and grow so much alike as to become indistinguishable from one another?

   What price will technology extract from the social, cultural, and emotional qualities of human nature?

   Is there an idea, concept or belief that is more valuable than a human life?  Are ideas, concepts, or beliefs, even considered reality?

   Throughout history we have heard of people risking and losing their lives for ideals and principles; but, these were people who were able to rationalise for themselves what the consequences and outcomes might be.  What is the proper consideration for us to take with regards to people who are not competent, who may be children, or even infants?

   There was a discussion on this very topic at Ash’s place over at Into the Rabbit Hole as to what the community responsibility should be when an eleven year old girl was allowed to die because her parents refused to get her the medical care she needed to live.  At what point does a person have a unique presence on this earth and the right to life?  In the womb? at birth? at eighteen or twenty-one?  If pre-natal abortions can be legalised how about post-natal ones?  The threat of post-natal abortions would go a long way in controlling the Anti-Social Behaviour problem with modern teenagers wouldn’t it?  *that was sarcasm ok?*

   There is a case here in Ireland that will be heard in the court system within the next few days.  Parents of unborn twins are trying to prevent medical intervention and blood transfusions, that doctors feel necessary to save the childrens lives, because of their beliefs.  In this country, I believe, that the State can intervene and declare the newborns to be Wards of the State because of the sanctity of life provisions within the Constitution and in doing so can approve of any necessary medical treatment regardless of the parents wishes.  Would it be morally feasible to have the courts allow the medical staff to treat the infants while they are still in the womb?

   Should we as a community take the responsibility to care for each and every life even if it goes against the wishes of the parents?

   What is all the fuss about?  What is there to know about the Lisbon Treaty referendum?  The answer to this Euro-riddle is as plain as Irish stew!  And for all the eejits out there having a great auld chinwagging session on the pros and cons of our future economy, neutrality, or our small voice in the greater European scheme of things answer me this one question will ya?

   Why, if voting yes for this treaty will make the EU 27 a more democratic union, are they not allowing all citizens to vote in a democratic electoral process throughout the member States?  If this passes in June do you think they will ever allow us to vote on anything again?  Why should they?  For Heaven’s Sake people wake the feck up will ya?

   Only a flock of bloody sheep would vote yes for this shite.  Off ya go!

   View this video, posted by Jazz Biscuit, before you vote!

   More often than not, what begins as a civilized debate often degenerates into an irrational argument, when reason and truth are exhausted the baser elements rear their ugly heads.  When fear of losing the debate over-rides the concept of the original plan to have an open exchange of thoughts or ideas with others, isn’t it amazing how personalities, backgrounds, or beliefs creep in?  The next time you happen upon a new blog try this test, read the comments first, this should give you the best representation of what kind of blog you are visiting, and quickly tell you if you should bother with the blog at all!  Blogs are fairly easy to categorise because the comments sections offer an immediate reaction, by the debaters, that can be seen by all.  Some bloggers don’t even respond to honest criticisms or questions, that says even more.  But, this post is not about blogging etiquette, styles, or preferences.

   The reaction, or lack of it, to the recent publication of the film "Fitna" tells us more about our ability to rise above our baser instinctive need to retaliate than it does of a religion.  Reason and tolerance seem to prevail on all sides amidst this controversial release.  There is hope.  Oh sure, there will be some reactionary responses, there always are a few misfits, malcontents, and under-achievers that want to be heard; but, in the main, it seems as if the majority see this film for what it is, a tabloid piece of media, a 15 minute non-event.  The horrible things we’ve been doing to each other for thousands of years is what is truely shocking, not that a small part of it is shown on a piece of video.  Some of the un-educated are exchanging a bit of foul language between them and a few of the main stream media outlets are fanning the flames to sell advertising but it seems that most are ignoring the hate filled bickering.  Balance and objectivity are what we need, and that is just what you get from Euro Yank where he posts the "Fitna" video and a short rebuttal film along with commentary.  A "must see" for anyone who wishes to gain some insight into the situation.

   Monotheism blossomed out of the harsh desert environment between western Asia and the Middle East almost 4,000 years ago.  Something about this idea of only one God rang as true in the hearts of the inhabitants and Abraham, of the Old Testament, is credited with being the first human to commit his beliefs in this way.  Down through the ages this idea caught on with the general public and became a concept that most of the world embraces and adheres to today.  Of all the other options, this idea of only one God, made more sense to a wider assortment of peoples than the idols formed by men.  Not everyone made this transition at once or in the same manner.  Words, ideas, inventions, and people travelled at a much slower rate in those days than they do now; but, travel they did, these ideas followed the trade routes and were welcomed as a sign of hope in these arid lands.  Even now, when we are confronted with new ideas and concepts, it spurs great debates both oral and written, and eventually some sort of consensus or public awareness is born.

   Nearly 300 years after the mission of Jesus, in the year 325 of the Common Era, a council was convened by the Emperor Constantine I that would once and for all decide which of all these writings and oral traditions would be deemed acceptable to the new Christian movement.  It was the Council of Nicaea that chose what the Christian Bible would become.  The Jewish writings, unchangeable by Constantine’s councils, were much older and were included as the Old Testament and the common history of Jews and Christians was forever bound under the one living God of Abraham, Moses, and Isaiah.  This new Book also made it’s way along the trade routes of the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, and the Arab Peninsula.

   The city of Mecca was the largest at the time on the Arabian Peninsula and was a crossroads of trade and commerce for Jews, Christians, Arabs, and Africans.  It was here, about 300 years after Nicaea, that the Prophet Mohammed began his mission to bring the estranged descendants of Abraham back to the one living God.  It was from Abraham’s sons, Ishmael and Isaac, that the great peoples of Arabia and Judea came.  As if a long lost rememberance was re-kindled in the minds and hearts of the Arabian nation they followed Muhammed back to the God of their ancestors and joined their brothers and sisters in believing in the one true God of Abraham.  Allah, Yahweh, and God are the different names of the same Supreme Being.  The similarities between Christians, Muslims, and Jews far outweigh the differences and in time it will be these similarities that will allow us to co-exist in tolerance, compassion and peace. 

   In the world today diplomacy between different nations and peoples allow us a relatively comfortable existence in the West.  We need to overcome our differences and embrace our sameness with everyone, this can be a successful achievement even though our track record isn’t stellar.  All nations and peoples are guilty of abandoning the Faith and committing atrocities.  If you think you can find justification for your actions in the Scriptures, Proverbs, or Surahs of your written tradition then think again.  No, don’t think, that is where our problems lie, with you thinking.  Instead, check your interpretations with the Ten Commandments of The Book, if there is a contradiction with your version and the Word of God, can you guess who is wrong?

   The threat from Islam does not come from it’s religious beliefs it comes from it’s economic ones and it is aimed at the rich and powerful.  The socio-economic philosophy of Islam is to redistribute natural resources among all who need it with no regard for private profit, a banking system with no interest payments, and an idea that all basic human needs be cared for.  It is a system that blends the positive aspects of capitalism with a type of communism that includes incentives for the ambitious.  Is it any wonder that this Third Solution is gaining converts faster than any other?

   All the things we talked about in this series of articles are historic and history can be a great teacher.  Two events happened over the weekend.  One was a reflection on Ireland’s independence and we celebrated the 92nd anniversary of the Easter Uprising, the other event is current and history in the making.  This second matter concerns the Bear, Stearns & Company bailout and the fact that the Federal Reserve, or the Central Bank for America, will interject $30 billion into the company, additionally candidate Clinton is asking the Fed to "make available" a further $30 billion to the public sector to help with the mortgage crisis.  Before we continue, have a quick look at this post by Purple Frog to see what a billion really is!  You’ll be amazed!

   There were patriotic speeches made from Dublin this weekend and one quoted the words of the men of the 1916 Uprising, that they wanted  "…a Sovereign and Independent Free State…" for Ireland.  Little did those courageous men know that within one life-time Ireland would choose to give up this sovereignty and independence voluntarily for a new master.  No control of currency, no control of borders, laws and leadership transferred off the island, and Ireland’s ability to take it’s place in the world usurped by strangers in Brussels who rule the European Union.  The petty squabbles about the right-to-life and neutrality issues pale in comparison to the economic ramifications of the Lisbon Treaty for once the absolute control of wealth is handed over to Brussels we will follow the Pied Piper of Profit like good little mice.  Within the Lisbon Treaty there is no provision that guarantees that the European Central Bank will remain independent of political control!  President Sarkozy of France has criticized this independence and wishes to change it’s mandate.

   Ireland has forfeited it’s right to control her own economic future.  Previously in this series we mentioned Central Banks, these are institutions that control the ebb and flow of available currencies either by sovereign governments or agencies contracted by these governments.  Ireland’s founding fathers freed us from being subjects of the Crown; but, now we have become subjects of the Coin.  The European Coin.  The European Central Bank.

   Technically the European Central Bank is not a member of the International Monetary Fund, it doesn’t have to be, all it’s member states are.  We saw, that in order to be a member of this elite banking club, all members must base their currency valuations on fiat currency, the taxabilty of it’s population, a.k.a. slavery to debt.  Ireland’s population, and the States’ ability to extract taxes from them, gave Ireland’s currency a value when we surrended our Punts for Euros.  In order to maintain these levels the ECB will insure that the rate of tax collected remains at these transition levels.  Although England is a member of the European Union it was smart enough not to give up it’s sovereignty as regards to it’s economic freedom.  The Bank of England is also a central bank; but, it is one that is owned and under control of the government.  The Federal Reserve System is a consortium of twelve banks, owned privately, and under contract to the US government to provide an economy by which the politicians can conduct foreign and domestic policy.

   President John F. Kennedy, who was a great student of history and an admirer of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, tried to give back to the American people the right to control their own destiny.  In June 1963 he signed Executive Order Number 11110 which would take back the power of the Federal Reserve System and restore true "freedom and democracy" to the government "of the people" after it was taken away 50 years prior.  He was killed within five months, draw your own conclusions.  That Executive Order is still awaiting Presidential implementation for the brave soul who, while occupying the Oval Office, will dare to confront the Money Machine. 

   The ECB is currently fighting the temptation to lower interest rates and thus expanding the M1 money supply.  It is under pressure from the US Central Bankers who are continually lowering theirs while they are printing all this new money for Bear Stearns and the mortgage bailout if Hillary has her way.  This is a battle within the Money Machine that the ECB will lose.  All these billions that the Fed is interjecting into the economy costs the tax slaves dearly, the combination of lower interest rates and more money in the system is hyperinflation which is expanding the money supply thus lowering values.  The world economy has only one way to go, down.

   In conclusion of this series we know what we have always known, that people are the true wealth of the world, and that there are those out there who are trying to steal this wealth.  In simple terms we can fight this Money Machine by staying out of debt, vote NO to the Lisbon Treaty, be informed…be aware…be alert…help one another…and question everything!

   The sovereignty of any nation lies in it’s ability to set and control it’s own borders, provide protection and security for it’s inhabitants, maintain a legal system for domestic disturbances, and provide a government that can transfer power from one political group to another if need be, and function with other nations relevant to trade, diplomacy, and even war.  Sovereign nations also need a monetary system that is recognized internally as well as externally to insure the smooth transfer of goods and services that it produces or wishes to procure.

   These governments can have complete control over their monetary system or they can assign the responsibilities to another organisation.  Throughout history a major factor in each country’s national identity has been in having it’s own currency and the ability to have that currency recognised outside of it’s borders.  Back in the day when money was money, that is the coin was not a symbol of wealth but the wealth itself in it’s weight in gold, recognition and acceptance was not a problem.  Today it is.  When foreign currencies drifted into the neighbouring King’s coffers they simply melted down the metals, along with any bracelets or rings recently acquired during the plunders of war, and created new coins with the emblems of the King or country on them.  Winning wars was profitable in those days, especially for countries with few natural resources.

   Look at the edge of a 50 cent Euro coin, do you see the ridges and lines?  The €1 and €2 coins have them too, plus stars, but are not as easily seen.  Today there is no real need for these markings they are simply habit, or tradition.  When money was money though those markings were very important.  The first coins had smooth edges, like the Euro copper coins, and it was easy for anyone who held one of these ancient coins to file a little dust off for themselves!  These ridges and identifying markers were placed on the gold and silver coins to maintain trust until real money was disbanded altogether.  During the early 1940’s, when America had entered the war, copper was in big demand.  One penny’s weight in copper became more valuable than the penny.  What happened then?  The government seized all the copper pennies and issued steel ones.  Less than ten years before that, during the Depression, the value of privately held gold, in the shape of jewelry, coins, and bullion far out weighed the value of all the deflated dollars floating about in the country.  So, what did they do?  They confiscated the gold and made it illegal to own any!  At that time gold reserves backed the American currency in such a way that for every dollar in circulation there was supposed to be one dollar of gold in the vaults, the dollar value was fixed, known as the Gold Standard, and gold was $35 an ounce.  In one fell swoop they collected all the known wealth in the possession of the individual and paid them off with nearly worthless paper.  Through hyperinflation then, just like now, there was an expanded money supply which devalued the circulating currency.  Why go to the expense of war when you can plunder your own?

   Colonialism, imperialism, and the obvious conquering of sovereign nations for booty or natural resources has gone out of fashion.  Wars are too expensive, the chances are too great, publicity too closely scrutinized, and the profits are too small for governments to openly continue this practice.  But, the money manipulators, who are not elected nor subjected to media criticisms, have a vested interest in government policy.  During all the wars, depressions and recessions of the previous century it became obvious that the traditional methods concerning wealth, currency distribution, and sovereignty were becoming absolete.  The money machine decided, outside of and above the realm of politics, to institute a new monetary standard.  Thirty years after the gold seizure and penny swap the stage was set for the final coup, the dollar broke it’s ties to gold.

   The International Monetary Fund is a consortium of national banks.  Some of these banks are regulated directly by the governments they serve, others are not, but they all have one thing in common.  Their currency cannot be backed up by gold.  To join the club a nation must have another source of wealth more precious than gold.  What is more precious than gold?  You!  You, your family and your friends.  This used to be called slavery; but, now it is given a name we can feel comfortable with, fiat currency.  Fiat currency is the new wealth of nations, it is described as a demand by the government for the people to pay taxes and that the demand is seen to be enforcible.

   In order to protect the value of the US dollar, and to keep it’s existence in demand, a deal was struck with the oil producing countries.  The dollar would be used as the currency for buying oil, not just by the United States but by everyone.  This is known now as the petrodollar.  If Japan buys oil from Kuwait it must do so in US dollars so that it creates a demand for the dollar to be held by Japan.  If Japan ever wants or needs a barrel of oil it must give Kuwait $100, and to do that Japan needs to keep some American currency in reserve, in it’s own vaults, this has created a false demand for the dollar.  All the oil importing countries have to keep some physical dollar currency at it’s disposal, if all this money came back to the States it’s economy would collapse.  What rounded off this deal with the oil producing nations is that after the purchase in dollars was made the revenues from the sale of this oil would be deposited/invested in the US.  The circle is complete right?  Well, not quite, there are a few loose ends.

   Since the demand for oil has risen there are new oil producing countries that were not originally locked into this arrangement, most notably Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq and Norway.  Norway invests heavily overseas with it’s petro-profits and is deemed no threat, Russia is spending it’s gains on improving domestic infrastructure, again no threat.  Canada and Mexico are the largest suppliers of oil to the US.  In order to protect these resources in the face of a diminishing dollar there are plans to conquer Canada and Mexico in the form of a treaty that will create the North American Union with the amero as the common currency.  Iran and Venezuela have been making noises about ceasing to use the dollar for it’s petrol sales and instead switch to the Euro.  Diplomatic sabre rattling kept them quiet for a time.  In 2000 Saddam Hussein made the leap from petrodollar to euro-petro and because of this he reaped a 17% bonus to his profits because of the exchange rates at the time.  This was not deemed satisfactory and his country was invaded, two months after the invasion Iraq was back on the petrodollar.  That was five years ago.  Iran and Venezuela have since put their transition policies on hold, for now…

Ahmadinejad of Iran and Chavez of Venezuela