ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS!

ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS!

NEW! PODCAST OF 'ALL WARS ARE BANKERS WARS' FROM JANUARY 14TH, 2013 RADIO SHOW.
By Michael Rivero at What really happened .com
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest. After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes.

"The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution." -- Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders. Just one year after Mayer Amschel Rothschild had uttered his infamous "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws", the bankers succeeded in setting up a new Private Central Bank called the First Bank of the United States, largely through the efforts of the Rothschild's chief US supporter, Alexander Hamilton. Founded in 1791, by the end of its twenty year charter the First Bank of the United States had almost ruined the nation's economy, while enriching the bankers. Congress refused to renew the charter and signaled their intention to go back to a state issued value based currency on which the people paid no interest at all to any banker. This resulted in a threat from Nathan Mayer Rothschild against the US Government, "Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war." Congress still refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States, whereupon Nathan Mayer Rothschild railed, "Teach those impudent Americans a lesson! Bring them back to colonial status!" The British Prime Minister at the time, Spencer Perceval was adamently opposed to war with the United States, primarily because the majority of England's military might was occupied with the ongoing Napoleonic wars. Spencer Perceval was concerned that Britain might not prevail in a new American war, a concern shared by many in the British government. Then, Spencer Perceval was assassinated (the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated in office) and replaced by Robert Banks Jenkinson, the 2nd Earl of Liverpool, who was fully supportive of a war to recapture the colonies. Financed at virtually no interest by the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Britain then provoked the war of 1812 to recolonize the United States and force them back into the slavery of the Bank of England, or to plunge the United States into so much debt they would be forced to accept a new private central bank. And the plan worked. Even though the War of 1812 was won by the United States, Congress was forced to grant a new charter for yet another private bank issuing the public currency as loans at interest, the Second Bank of the United States. Once again, private bankers were in control of the nation's money supply and cared not who made the laws or how many British and American soldiers had to die for it.
Once again the nation was plunged into debt, unemployment, and poverty by the predations of the private central bank, and in 1832 Andrew Jackson successfully campaigned for his second term as President under the slogan, "Jackson And No Bank!" True to his word, Jackson succeeds in blocking the renewal of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States.

"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!" -- Andrew Jackson, shortly before ending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. From the original minutes of the Philadelphia committee of citizens sent to meet with President Jackson (February 1834), according to Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels

Shortly after President Jackson (the only American President to actually pay off the National Debt) ended the Second Bank of the United States, there was an attempted assassination which failed when both pistols used by the assassin, Richard Lawrence, failed to fire. Lawrence later said that with Jackson dead, "Money would be more plenty."
Of course, the public school system is as subservient to the bankers' wishes to keep certain history from you, just as the corporate media is subservient to Monsanto's wishes to keep the dangers of GMOs from you, and the global warming cult's wishes to conceal from you that the Earth has actually been cooling for the last 16 years. Thus is should come as little surprise that much of the real reasons for the events of the Civil War are not well known to the average American.
When the Confederacy seceded from the United States, the bankers once again saw the opportunity for a rich harvest of debt, and offered to fund Lincoln's efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest. Lincoln remarked that he would not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers and using his authority as President, issued a new government currency, the greenback. This was a direct threat to the wealth and power of the central bankers, who quickly responded.

"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." -- The London Times responding to Lincoln's decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War, rather than agree to private banker's loans at 30% interest.

In 1872 New York bankers sent a letter to every bank in the United States, urging them to fund newspapers that opposed government-issued money (Lincoln's greenbacks).

"Dear Sir: It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers... as will oppose the issuing of greenback paper money, and that you also withhold patronage or favors from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the Government issue of money. Let the Government issue the coin and the banks issue the paper money of the country... [T]o restore to circulation the Government issue of money, will be to provide the people with money, and will therefore seriously affect your individual profit as bankers and lenders." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

"It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages. THIS CAN BE DONE BY CONTROLLING THE MONEY." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

Goaded by the private bankers, much of Europe supported the Confederacy against the Union, with the expectation that victory over Lincoln would mean the end of the Greenback. France and Britain considered an outright attack on the United States to aid the confederacy, but were held at bay by Russia, which had just ended the serfdom system and had a state central bank similar to the system the United States had been founded on. Left free of European intervention, the Union won the war, and Lincoln announced his intention to go on issuing greenbacks. Following Lincoln's assassination, the Greenbacks were pulled from circulation and the American people forced to go back to an economy based on bank notes borrowed at interest from the private bankers. Tsar Alexander II, who authorized Russian militarey assistance to Lincoln, was himself assassinated one year later.
Finally, in 1913, the Private Central Bankers of Europe, in particular the Rothschilds of Great Britain and the Warburgs of Germany, met with their American financial collaborators on Jekyll Island, Georgia to form a new banking cartel with the express purpose of forming the Third Bank of the United States, with the aim of placing complete control of the United States money supply once again under the control of private bankers. Owing to hostility over the previous banks, the name was changed to "The Federal Reserve" system in order to grant the new bank a quasi-governmental image, but in fact it is a privately owned bank, no more "Federal" than Federal Express. Indeed, in 2012, the Federal Reserve successfully rebuffed a Freedom of Information Lawsuit by Bloomberg News on the grounds that as a private banking corporation and not actually a part of the government, the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to the operations of the Federal Reserve. 1913 proved to be a transformative year for the nation's economy, first with the passage of the 16th "income tax" Amendment and the false claim that it had been ratified.

"I think if you were to go back and and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, the income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." - U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, Sullivan Vs. United States, 2003.

Later that same year, and apparently unwilling to risk another questionable amendment, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act over Christmas holiday 1913, while members of Congress opposed to the measure were at home. This was a very underhanded deal, as the Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to issue the public currency, does not authorize its delegation, and thus should have required a new Amendment to transfer that authority to a private bank. But pass it Congress did, and President Woodrow Wilson signed it as he promised the bankers he would in exchange for generous campaign contributions. Wilson later regretted that decision.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson 1919

The next year, World War One started, and it is important to remember that prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, there was no such thing as a world war.
World War One started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, but quickly shifted to focus on Germany, whose industrial capacity was seen as an economic threat to Great Britain, who saw the decline of the British Pound as a result of too much emphasis on financial activity to the neglect of agriculture, industrial development, and infrastructure (not unlike the present day United States). Although pre-war Germany had a private central bank, it was heavily restricted and inflation kept to reasonable levels. Under government control, investment was guaranteed to internal economic development, and Germany was seen as a major power. So, in the media of the day, Germany was portrayed as the prime opponent of World War One, and not just defeated, but its industrial base flattened. Following the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was ordered to pay the war costs of all the participating nations, even though Germany had not actually started the war. This amounted to three times the value of all of Germany itself. Germany's private central bank, to whom Germany had gone deeply into debt to pay the costs of the war, broke free of government control, and massive inflation followed (mostly triggered by currency speculators) , permanently trapping the German people in endless debt.
When the Weimar Republic collapsed economically, it opened the door for the National Socialists to take power. Their first financial move was to issue their own state currency which was not borrowed from private central bankers. Freed from having to pay interest on the money in circulation, Germany blossomed and quickly began to rebuild its industry. The media called it "The German Miracle". TIME magazine lionized Hitler for the amazing improvement in life for the German people and the explosion of German industry, and even named him TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938.
Once again, Germany's industrial output became a threat to Great Britain.

"Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain." - Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)

"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

"Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US - General Robert E. Wood)

"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Winston Churchill (- Autumn 1939 broadcast)

Germany's state-issued value based currency was also a direct threat to the wealth and power of the private central banks, and as early as 1933 they started to organize a global boycott against Germany to strangle this upstart ruler who thought he could break free of private central bankers!

Click for larger image As had been the case in World War One, Great Britain and other nations threatened by Germany's economic power looked for an excuse to go to war, and as public anger in Germany grew over the boycott, Hitler foolishly gave them that excuse. Years later, in a spirit of candor, the real reasons for that war were made clear.

"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to."- Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)

"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." -Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960)

As a side note, we need to step back before WW2 and recall Marine Major General Smedley Butler. In 1933, Wall Street bankers and financiers had bankrolled the successful coups by both Hitler and Mussolini. Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was financing Hitler right up to the day war was declared with Germany. And they decided that a fascist dictatorship in the United States based on the one on Italy would be far better for their business interests than Roosevelt's "New Deal" which threatened massive wealth re-distribution to recapitalize the working and middle class of America. So the Wall Street tycoons recruited General Butler to lead the overthrow of the US Government and install a "Secretary of General Affairs" who would be answerable to Wall Street and not the people, would crush social unrest and shut down all labor unions. General Butler pretended to go along with the scheme but then exposed the plot to Congress. Congress, then as now in the pocket of the Wall Street bankers, refused to act. When Roosevelt learned of the planned coup he demanded the arrest of the plotters, but the plotters simply reminded Roosevelt that if any one of them were sent to prison, their friends on Wall Street would deliberatly collapse the still-fragile economy and blame Roosevelt for it. Roosevelt was thus unable to act until the start of WW2, at which time he prosecuted many of the plotters under the Trading With The Enemy act. The Congressional minutes into the coup were finally released in 1967 and became the inspiration for the movie, "Seven Days in May" but with the true financial villains erased from the script.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of our country's most agile military force -- the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent more of my time being a high--class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. "I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that the Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on three continents." -- General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant,1935

As President, John F. Kennedy understood the predatory nature of private central banking. He understood why Andrew Jackson fought so hard to end the Second Bank of the United States. So Kennedy wrote and signed Executive Order 11110 which ordered the US Treasury to issue a new public currency, the United States Note.

Click for larger Kennedy's United States Notes were not borrowed form the Federal Reserve but created by the US Government and backed by the silver stockpiles held by the US Government. It represented a return to the system of economics the United States had been founded on, and was perfectly legal for Kennedy to do. All told, some four and one half billion dollars went into public circulation, eroding interest payments to the Federal Reserve and loosening their control over the nation. Five months later John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas, and the United States Notes pulled from circulation and destroyed (except for samples held by collectors). John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named to the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain the banking dimensions behind the assassination were concealed from the public.
As we enter the eleventh year of what future history will most certainly describe as World War Three, we need to examine the financial dimensions behind the wars.
Towards the end of World War Two, when it became obvious that the allies were going to win and dictate the post war environment, the major world economic powers met at Bretton Woods, a luxury resort in New Hampshire in July of 1944, and hammered out the Bretton Woods agreement for international finance. The British Pound lost its position as the global trade and reserve currency to the US dollar (part of the price demanded by Roosevelt in exchange for the US entry into the war). Absent the economic advantages of being the world's "go-to" currency, Britain was forced to nationalize the Bank of England in 1946. The Bretton Woods agreement, ratified in 1945, in addition to making the dollar the global reserve and trade currency, obligated the signatory nations to tie their currencies to the dollar. The nations that ratified Bretton Woods did so on two conditions. The first was that the Federal Reserve would refrain from over-printing the dollar as a means to loot real products and produce from other nations in exchange for ink and paper; basically an imperial tax. That assurance was backed up by the second requirement, which was that the US dollar would always be convertible to gold at $35 per ounce.
Of course, the Federal Reserve, being a private bank and not answerable to the US Government, did start overprinting paper dollars, and much of the perceived prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s was the result of foreign nations' obligations to accept the paper notes as being worth gold at the rate of $35 an ounce. Then in 1970, France looked at the huge pile of paper notes sitting in their vaults, for which real French products like wine and cheese had been traded, and notified the United States government that they would exercise their option under Bretton Woods to return the paper notes for gold at the $35 per ounce exchange rate. Of course, the United States had nowhere near the gold to redeem the paper notes, so on August 15th, 1971, Richard Nixon "temporarily" suspended the gold convertibility of the US Federal Reserve Notes. This "Nixon shock" effectively ended Bretton Woods and many global currencies started to delink from the US dollar. Worse, since the United States had collateralized their loans with the nation's gold reserves, it quickly became apparent that the US Government did not in fact have enough gold to cover the outstanding debts. Foreign nations began to get very nervous about their loans to the US and understandably were reluctant to loan any additional money to the United States without some form of collateral. So Richard Nixon started the environmental movement, with the EPA and its various programs such as "wilderness zones", Roadless areas", Heritage rivers", "Wetlands", all of which took vast areas of public lands and made them off limits to the American people who were technically the owners of those lands. But Nixon had little concern for the environment and the real purpose of this land grab under the guise of the environment was to pledge those pristine lands and their vast mineral resources as collateral on the national debt. The plethora of different programs was simply to conceal the true scale of how much American land was being pledged to foreign lenders as collateral on the government's debts; eventually almost 25% of the nation itself.
click for full size image With open lands for collateral already in short supply, the US Government embarked on a new program to shore up sagging international demand for the dollar. The United States approached the world's oil producing nations, mostly in the Middle East, and offered them a deal. In exchange for only selling their oil for dollars, the United States would guarantee the military safety of those oil-rich nations. The oil rich nations would agree to spend and invest their US paper dollars inside the United States, in particular in US Treasury Bonds, redeemable through future generations of US taxpayers. The concept was labeled the "petrodollar". In effect, the US, no longer able to back the dollar with gold, was now backing it with oil. Other peoples' oil. And that necessity to keep control over those oil nations to prop up the dollar has shaped America's foreign policy in the region ever since.
But as America's manufacturing and agriculture has declined, the oil producing nations faced a dilemma. Those piles of US Federal Reserve notes were not able to purchase much from the United States because the United States had little (other than real estate) anyone wanted to buy. Europe's cars and aircraft were superior and less costly, while experiments with GMO food crops led to nations refusing to buy US food exports. Israel's constant belligerence against its neighbors caused them to wonder if the US could actually keep their end of the petrodollar arrangement. Oil producing nations started to talk of selling their oil for whatever currency the purchasers chose to use. Iraq, already hostile to the United States following Desert Storm, demanded the right to sell their oil for Euros in 2000 and in 2002, the United Nations agreed to allow it under the "Oil for food" program instituted following Desert Storm. One year later the United States re-invaded Iraq, lynched Saddam Hussein, and placed Iraq's oil back on the world market only for US dollars.
The clear US policy shift following 9-11, away from being an impartial broker of peace in the Mideast to one of unquestioned support for Israel's aggressions only further eroded confidence in the Petrodollar deal and even more oil producing nations started openly talking of oil trade for other global currencies.
Over in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had instituted a state-owned central bank and a value based trade currency, the Gold Dinar. Gaddafi announced that Libya's oil was for sale, but only for the Gold Dinar. Other African nations, seeing the rise of the Gold Dinar and the Euro, even as the US dollar continued its inflation-driven decline, flocked to the new Libyan currency for trade. This move had the potential to seriously undermine the global hegemony of the dollar. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. So, the United States invaded Libya, brutally murdered Qaddafi ( the object lesson of Saddam's lynching not being enough of a message, apparently), imposed a private central bank, and returned Libya's oil output to dollars only. The gold that was to have been made into the Gold Dinars is, as of last report, unaccounted for.
According to General Wesley Clark, the master plan for the "dollarification" of the world's oil nations included seven targets, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran (Venezuela, which dared to sell their oil to China for the Yuan, is a late addition). What is notable about the original seven nations originally targeted by the US is that none of them are members of the Bank for International Settlements, the private central bankers private central bank, located in Switzerland. This meant that these nations were deciding for themselves how to run their nations' economies, rather than submit to the international private banks.
Now the bankers' gun sights are on Iran, which dares to have a government central bank and sell their oil for whatever currency they choose. The war agenda is, as always, to force Iran's oil to be sold only for dollars and to force them to accept a privately owned central bank. Malaysia, one of the new nations without a Rothschild central bank, is now being invaded by a force claimed to be "Al Qaeda", and with the death of President Hugo Chavez, plans to impose a US and banker friendly regime on Venezuela are clearly being implemented.
The German government recently asked for the return of some of their gold bullion from the Bank of France and the New York Federal Reserve. France has said it will take 5 years to return Germany's gold. The United States has said they will need 8 years to return Germany's gold. This suggests strongly that the Bank of France and the NY Federal Reserve have used the deposited gold for other purposes, most likely to cover gold futures contracts used to artificially suppress the price of gold to keep investors in the equities markets, and the Central Banks are scrambling to find new gold to cover the shortfall and prevent a gold run. So it is inevitable that suddenly France invades Mali, ostensibly to combat Al Qaeda, with the US joining in. Mali just happens to be one of the world's largest gold producers with gold accounting for 80% of Mali exports. War for the bankers does not get more obvious than that!
Mexico has demanded a physical audit of their gold bullion stored at the Bank of England, and along with Venezuela's vast oil reserves (larger than Saudi Arabia), Venezuela's gold mines are a prize lusted after by all the Central Banks that played fast and loose with other peoples' gold bullion. So we can expect regime change if not outright invasion soon.
You have been raised by a public school system and media that constantly assures you that the reasons for all these wars and assassinations are many and varied. The US claims to bring democracy to the conquered lands (they haven't; the usual result of a US overthrow is the imposition of a dictatorship, such as the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the imposition of the Shah, or the 1973 CIA overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende, and the imposition of Augusto Pinochet), or to save a people from a cruel oppressor, revenge for 9-11, or that tired worn-out catch all excuse for invasion, weapons of mass destruction. Assassinations are always passed off as "crazed lone nuts" to obscure the real agenda.
The real agenda is simple. It is enslavement of the people by creation of a false sense of obligation. That obligation is false because the Private Central Banking system, by design, always creates more debt than money with which to pay that debt. Private Central Banking is not science, it is a religion; a set of arbitrary rules created to benefit the priesthood, meaning the owners of the Private Central Bank. The fraud persists, with often lethal results, because the people are tricked into believing that this is the way life is suppoed to be and no alternative exists or should be dreamt of. The same was true of two earlier systems of enslavement, Rule by Divine Right and Slavery, both systems built to trick people into obedience, and both now recognized by modern civilizatyion as illegitimate. Now we are entering a time in human history where we will recognize that rule by debt, or rule by Private Central Bankers issuing the public currency as a loan at interest, is equally illegitimate. It only works as long as people allow themselves to believe that this is the way life is supposed to be.
But understand this above all; Private Central Banks do not exist to serve the people, the community, or the nation. Private Central Banks exist to serve their owners, to make them rich beyond the dreams of Midas and all for the cost of ink, paper, and the right bribe to the right official.
Behind all these wars, all these assassinations, the hundred million horrible deaths from all the wars lies a single policy of dictatorship. The private central bankers allow rulers to rule only on the condition that the people of a nation be enslaved to the private central banks. Failing that, said ruler will be killed, and their nation invaded by those other nations enslaved to private central banks.
The so-called "clash of civilizations" we read about on the corporate media is really a war between banking systems, with the private central bankers forcing themselves onto the rest of the world, no matter how many millions must die for it. Indeed the constant hatemongering against Muslims lies in a simple fact. Like the ancient Christians (prior to the Knights Templars private banking system) , Muslims forbid usury, or the lending of money at interest. And that is the reason our government and media insist they must be killed or converted. They refuse to submit to currencies issued at interest. They refuse to be debt slaves.
So off to war your children must go, to spill their blood for the money-junkies' gold. We barely survived the last two world wars. In the nuclear/bioweapon age, are the private central bankers willing to risk incinerating the whole planet just to feed their greed?
Apparently so.
Flag waving and propaganda aside, all modern wars are wars by and for the private bankers, fought and bled for by third parties unaware of the true reason they are expected to gracefully be killed and croppled for. The process is quite simple. As soon as the Private Central Bank issues its currency as a loan at interest, the public is forced deeper and deeper into debt. When the people are reluctant to borrow any more, that is when the Keynesian economists demand the government borrow more to keep the pyramid scheme working. When both the people and government refuse to borrow any more, that is when wars are started, to plunge everyone even deeper into debt to pay for the war, then after the war to borrow more to rebuild. When the war is over, the people have about the same as they did before the war, except the graveyards are far larger and everyone is in debt to the private bankers for the next century. This is why Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was funding the rise of Adolf Hitler.
As long as Private Central Banks are allowed to exist, inevitably as the night follows day there will be poverty, hopelessness, and millions of deaths in endless World Wars, until the Earth itself is sacrificed in flames to Mammon.
The path to true peace on Earth lies in the abolishment of all private central banking everywhere, and a return to the state-issued value-based currencies that allow nations and people to become prosperous.

We are staring into the abyss - Godfrey Bloom MEP

Why Did SILVER PRICE CRASH? - Chris Duane at the Liberty Mastermind Symp...

Obama! A Modern U.S. President (musical spoof)

The British government's jihad against free thought | Melanie Phillips

The British government's jihad against free thought | Melanie Phillips
 

The British government's jihad against free thought

Published in: Melanie's blog

More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print

By banning from the country as extremists the American anti-jihadis Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, the Home Secretary Teresa May has not only made herself look ridiculous but has sent the enemies of the United Kingdom the message that they have it on the run.
I do not support the approach taken by either Geller or Spencer to the problem of Islamic extremism. Both have endorsed groups such as the EDL and others which at best do not deal with the thuggish elements in their ranks and at worst are truly racist or xenophobic.
The result has been a serious blow to the credibility of these two writers, with particular damage being done to Spencer whose scholarship in itself is scrupulous. It has also split the defence against Islamic extremism, and handed a potent propaganda weapon to those who seek falsely to portray as bigoted extremists all who are engaged in the defence of the west against the Islamic jihad.
Nevertheless, the decision to ban this duo from Britain is unjustified, oppressive and comes perilously close to lining up the British government alongside those who wish to silence defenders of the west against the jihad, making a total mockery of Britain’s understanding of just who presents a danger to the state.
Neither Geller nor Spencer remotely presents such a danger. They intended to come to Britain to join an EDL rally in Woolwich, in the wake of the barbaric murder there of Drummer Lee Rigby by two Islamists last month.
Personally, I believe the EDL is not a respectable platform to join. Whether or not its rally is itself a threat to public order is, however, another issue. As far as is known, it is not being banned. It is only Geller and Spencer who have been banned from the country on the grounds that their presence is ‘not conducive to the public good’. The implication is that they will incite violence or disorder. But all the two of them do is criticise Islam, condemn jihadis and warn against the west’s failure to take seriously their machinations.
One may think they go too far, that some of their views are unpleasant or offensive or wrong; but that is surely no reason to ban them from the country. What on earth have we come to, after all, when the British Home Secretary is banning people on the basis that they criticise Islam and warn against jihadi violence? Is this not exactly the menacing argument mounted by Islamic extremists, that any condemnation of Islamic extremism is to be banned as ‘Islamophobic’?
Moreover, from the text of the Home Secretary’s letter to Spencer, it would appear that the reason for the the ban is that the British government is now telling people that certain interpretations of Islam are to be proscribed, even if they may be true – a truly terrifying and totalitarian development, and an open assault upon freedom of thought and expression, not to mention religious scholarship.
And if the argument is that any criticism of Islam may incite violence against Muslims, then by the same token Mrs May should ban all criticism of Israel -- on the much firmer grounds that there is a clearly demonstrated correlation between hate campaigns against Israel and attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions. Of course, that would be unthinkable.  So why the double standard?
And that is what is particularly intolerable here -- that Mrs May is allowing people to run around Britain who really are stirring up hatred and worse, but who appear to be untouchable because they are Islamists. The Commentator has drawn attention to  the recent entry to Britain of Muhammad Al-Arifi, a Saudi scholar who has declared that Shia Muslims are ‘evil’ and also stated  that ‘...al-Qaeda leader Sheikh Oussama Bin Laden, may his soul rest in peace, did not adopt many of the thoughts that are attributed to him today’.
The government also allowed into the country Shady Al-Suleiman, the Australian cleric who has called ‘for Allah to destroy the enemies of Islam’, who has endorsed Hamas which Britain recognises as a terrorist entity, and even endorsed the killing of British soldiers, saying, ‘Give victory to all the Mujahideen all over the world. Oh Allah, prepare us for the jihad’.
Aren’t these men, who foment sectarian division and endorse terrorism, not ‘conducive to the public good’?
So why did Mrs May ban Spencer and Geller? Was it because of the petition to do so by Hope not Hate -- which misrepresented and smeared them by claiming they called all Muslims savages (they did not)? Was it in response to one of the signatories to this petition, Tony Lloyd, Greater Manchester’s Police and Crime Commissioner (who Spencer and Geller say also misrepresented what they have said) who termed them

‘hate preachers – every bit as bad as those who use the name of Islam to propagate hatred’?

What an extraordinary thing to say. Geller and Spencer don’t go round calling for people to be killed, or preaching genocide or holy war, or spreading conspiracy theories and lies to foment hysteria and hatred. But when he was chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Tony Lloyd led a delegation to Gaza to meet leaders of Hamas, where he was photographed fraternally shaking the hand of the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.
So Lloyd is happy to meet with a group whose leader has called Israel a ‘cancerous tumour that must be removed’ and whose officials have said

‘the Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the earth, because they have displayed hostility to Allah…Allah will kill the Jews in the hell of the world to come, just like they killed the believers in the hell of this world’

and

‘...the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder: “I kill, therefore I am”... Israel is based only on blood and murder in order to exist, and it will disappear, with Allah's will, through blood and shahids [martyrs]’

– and yet he called for Spencer and Geller to be banned as ‘hate preachers’, a demand which the Home Secretary agrees was justified even as she allows real hate preachers to spread their poison around Britain.
Has Britain now totally lost the plot?

Lawful Rebellion - Its Time To Reassert Our National Sovereignty

Why have UAF(Useful Idiots)antifascists decided to target UKIP?

Why have antifascists decided to target UKIP?

fron m the Tea Room June , 2013 

Gary Robinson, a UKIP activist asks why antifascists have decided to target UKIP.

Until recently, I didn’t pay much attention to the UK’s anti-fascist groups. I knew little more about them than that they opposed the racialist British National Party.

BNP

The BNP’s success in 2009 (where they gained two members of the European Parliament) seems to have been their undoing – the party has fractured and been rocked by in-fighting ever since.

Former BNP MEP Andrew Brons was reported in the Telegraph as saying that “80 or 90 per cent of the party’s members, activists and former officials had left it”

According to Wikipedia, The BNP can now only boast one MEP and two councillors. Their membership teeters on the brink at 4200. I predict they will lose their remaining MEP in 2014.

Antifascists

British ‘antifascists’ then surely have two choices – congratulate themselves on a job well done and retire from their activities or go after the National Front, a party that has seen a massive resurgence of late.

National Front

The resurgence of the National Front was stimulated by the BNP’s 2010 decision to start accepting non-white members. It was also flooded with BNP defectors dismayed by constant infighting. The party has been holding dozens of street stalls across the nation in 2013 in locations as diverse as Wigan and Swansea.

Recently however, anti-fascists seem to have taken the bizarre decision to target the moderate UK Independence Party or UKIP instead.

UKIP

Nick Lowles, director of Hope Not Hate said in a Huffington post article : “Ukip is not a far right party, or even intrinsically racist.” Former Labour MEP Glyn Ford, now the UAF’s Europe officer has said “Ukip are not a fascist party”.

On a Channel Four news discussion in May 2013, the well-known Anti-fascist campaigner Matthew Collins said: “They [UKIP] are not a fascist organisation…they are very different to the BNP in a lot of ways” Diane Abbot MP said at the United Against Fascism conference “UKIP is obviously not a Fascist party”.

So why target UKIP?

So if we are not a fascist or far right party, why target UKIP? I believe the answer is simple – many of these anti-fascist groups are linked to the extreme left and militant elements within the Labour party.  While UKIP concentrated on taking donors, votes and councillors from The Conservative party these groups said nothing.

When we started gaining support in the North of England, much of which is traditionally Labour controlled, suddenly there were hastily-arranged meetings held by these groups in which the main topic of conversation was the increase in UKIP support. These actions are not motivated by anti-fascist ideology at all. Anti-fascists are being cynically used by extreme left politicians for no other reason than they like their jobs and want to continue drawing in their huge salaries.

Nigel Farage & UKIP’s Eastleigh candidate, Diane James

Some facts about UKIP

Unlike the BNP, UKIP have never had a whites only member policy. Our membership rules prevent ex-BNP and National Front members from being members of UKIP.  We have black and ethnic minority candidates and seek to rebuild links with the commonwealth. While we do want to reduce immigration, we don’t want a closed door or forced repatriation.

In summary then, UKIP are being targeted unfairly for purely party political reasons – and I would urge all genuine anti-fascists to do their own homework on these issues instead of relying on wealthy Labour and communist apparatchiks to tell you who to oppose.

UKIP MARCH INTO HORWICH AND LABOUR LACKEYS TOLD HOME TRUTHS

There is to be a by election later this month in Horwich, on Thurs 20th of June for a seat on Horwich Town Council.

And the good news coming in, is that the trade union lackeys who canvass for that EVIL organisation,The labour party is that they are having the doors slammed in there faces and are being widely being told what they really are. TRAITORS AND SCUM!!!!! By ordinary decent working class Horwich folk. Sick of the betrayal of there hopes and ambitions and nation. By a group of traitors that consider them sheep only to be dealt with at election time. While all the countries resources that should be spent on them . Have been given to foreigners and big multi national banks.

I must say that I have had the privilege of throwing there vile leaflets back in there faces and telling all four of them, (Yes they are afraid to go alone into white working class areas.) That they are scum and traitors. 

But on a better news there is a UKIP candidate running for election , And I must say they are delivering a excellent leaflet that exposes the traitors actions of the Labour party. And I call on all Horwich residents to read the leaflet thoroughly , and also that they exercise there Democratic right before the Lib/Lab/Con alliance take it away for ever,and vote for the UKIP candidate. 
I have uploaded the leaflet for you to view and hope very much that you consider what it says seriously.

Rowan Williams and Islamophilia: A Very Metropolitan Malady | Melanie Phillips

Rowan Williams and Islamophilia: A Very Metropolitan Malady | Melanie Phillips

Published in: Melanie's blog

More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print

You've really got to hand it to Dr Rowan Williams, the erstwhile Archbishop of Canterbury – he's got a sense of timing to die for.
Five years ago, he set off a cultural earthquake when, as head of the Anglican Communion, he made a speech in the Royal Courts of Justice in London in which he welcomed the 'inevitable' accommodation of Islamic sharia law in the UK.
At no stage, neither then nor subsequently, did he ever indicate that he regretted the intellectual fatuity and legal and theological shallowness of this suicide note for Britain's ancient culture.  Nor the deep shock felt by many that the country's principal Christian prelate was cheerfully willing on the Balkanisation of Britain and the destruction of its foundational democratic principle of 'one law for all'. Nor even that he understood this was the import of what he had said.
Now, some ten days after the barbaric murder in Woolwich, south London of Drummer Lee Rigby at the hands of Islamic fanatics quoting the Koran, Dr Williams looks set to repeat his triumph.
In what promises to be a high-profile event in the lawyers' Temple Church in London – which for some reason has taken a lead in promoting sharia in the UK – Dr Williams will today help launch a new book, Islam and English Law, published by Cambridge University Press.
According to the pre-launch blurb, the book will ask:

• 'Is sharia law compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights?
• Should English law give greater recognition to Islamic custom and practice?
• Should freedom of speech be restrained to protect Muslims' sensibilities?
• Can Muslims be full members, in good conscience and without qualification, of our pluralist society?'

and also

'…what changes, if any, to legal provision and practice will narrow division between the UK's communities, promote understanding and accommodation – and, to improve the protection offered to them all.'

Well, I suppose it's possible that the book – along with Dr Williams -- will answer that last question by saying: 'Stop sharia now'. Such an answer would certainly bring relief to the many thousands of British Muslims who want to live in freedom and security under democracy, equal human rights and 'one law for all'.
However, given that the contributors to this book are

Abdullahi An-Na'im, Mashood Baderin, Marion Boyd, Nicolas Bratza, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, Ian Edge, Khaled Abou El Fadl, David Ford, Robin Griffith-Jones, Mark Hill, Stephen Hockman, Sydney Kentridge, Christopher McCrudden, Dominic McGoldrick, Tariq Modood, Nicholas Phillips, Tariq Ramadan, Albie Sachs, Shaheen Sardar Ali, Prakash Shah and Rowan Williams,

I'd guess that the answer to the questions listed under the bullet-points above might be mostly 'yes', 'yes', 'yes' and 'yes'.
If so, then Dr Williams will doubly deserve his place in the pantheon of ridicule savaged by Douglas Murray in his dazzling new book, Islamophilia, which I am delighted to be publishing today as the latest title from my new electronic imprint, emBooks, in response to the Woolwich atrocity and its aftermath.
Islamophilia  is not about terrorism. It is not about Islam. It is not about Muslims. It is instead about those utterly ridiculous public figures -- including movie stars, literary giants, pop idols, army generals, bishops, museum curators and politicians -- in whom an epidemic loss of cultural nerve and the terror of losing their reputation in fashionable circles has made them victims of the debilitating affliction of Islamophilia. The book is laugh-out-loud funny. It is also jaw-dropping. And it is tragic.
This little firecracker fulfills my aim when I launched emBooks last month – to provide a platform for writers of talent and integrity to describe the world as it is, not as some people would like to remake it. My hope is thus to get right away from the polarisation and caricatures of so much political and cultural life, and reclaim instead the true, decent, rational centre ground of western society from those who have hijacked it.
I hope lots of people will join me.

About Melanie

Melanie Phillips is a British journalist and author. She is best known for her controversial column about political and social issues which currently appears in the Daily Mail. Awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996, she is the author of All Must Have Prizes, an acclaimed study of Britain's educational and moral crisis, which provoked the fury of educationists and the delight and relief of parents.
Read full biography

Books

• 
• 

Rowan Williams and Islamophilia: A Very Metropolitan Malady | Melanie Phillips

Rowan Williams and Islamophilia: A Very Metropolitan Malady | Melanie Phillips

Published in: Melanie's blog

More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print

You've really got to hand it to Dr Rowan Williams, the erstwhile Archbishop of Canterbury – he's got a sense of timing to die for.
Five years ago, he set off a cultural earthquake when, as head of the Anglican Communion, he made a speech in the Royal Courts of Justice in London in which he welcomed the 'inevitable' accommodation of Islamic sharia law in the UK.
At no stage, neither then nor subsequently, did he ever indicate that he regretted the intellectual fatuity and legal and theological shallowness of this suicide note for Britain's ancient culture.  Nor the deep shock felt by many that the country's principal Christian prelate was cheerfully willing on the Balkanisation of Britain and the destruction of its foundational democratic principle of 'one law for all'. Nor even that he understood this was the import of what he had said.
Now, some ten days after the barbaric murder in Woolwich, south London of Drummer Lee Rigby at the hands of Islamic fanatics quoting the Koran, Dr Williams looks set to repeat his triumph.
In what promises to be a high-profile event in the lawyers' Temple Church in London – which for some reason has taken a lead in promoting sharia in the UK – Dr Williams will today help launch a new book, Islam and English Law, published by Cambridge University Press.
According to the pre-launch blurb, the book will ask:

• 'Is sharia law compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights?
• Should English law give greater recognition to Islamic custom and practice?
• Should freedom of speech be restrained to protect Muslims' sensibilities?
• Can Muslims be full members, in good conscience and without qualification, of our pluralist society?'

and also

'…what changes, if any, to legal provision and practice will narrow division between the UK's communities, promote understanding and accommodation – and, to improve the protection offered to them all.'

Well, I suppose it's possible that the book – along with Dr Williams -- will answer that last question by saying: 'Stop sharia now'. Such an answer would certainly bring relief to the many thousands of British Muslims who want to live in freedom and security under democracy, equal human rights and 'one law for all'.
However, given that the contributors to this book are

Abdullahi An-Na'im, Mashood Baderin, Marion Boyd, Nicolas Bratza, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, Ian Edge, Khaled Abou El Fadl, David Ford, Robin Griffith-Jones, Mark Hill, Stephen Hockman, Sydney Kentridge, Christopher McCrudden, Dominic McGoldrick, Tariq Modood, Nicholas Phillips, Tariq Ramadan, Albie Sachs, Shaheen Sardar Ali, Prakash Shah and Rowan Williams,

I'd guess that the answer to the questions listed under the bullet-points above might be mostly 'yes', 'yes', 'yes' and 'yes'.
If so, then Dr Williams will doubly deserve his place in the pantheon of ridicule savaged by Douglas Murray in his dazzling new book, Islamophilia, which I am delighted to be publishing today as the latest title from my new electronic imprint, emBooks, in response to the Woolwich atrocity and its aftermath.
Islamophilia  is not about terrorism. It is not about Islam. It is not about Muslims. It is instead about those utterly ridiculous public figures -- including movie stars, literary giants, pop idols, army generals, bishops, museum curators and politicians -- in whom an epidemic loss of cultural nerve and the terror of losing their reputation in fashionable circles has made them victims of the debilitating affliction of Islamophilia. The book is laugh-out-loud funny. It is also jaw-dropping. And it is tragic.
This little firecracker fulfills my aim when I launched emBooks last month – to provide a platform for writers of talent and integrity to describe the world as it is, not as some people would like to remake it. My hope is thus to get right away from the polarisation and caricatures of so much political and cultural life, and reclaim instead the true, decent, rational centre ground of western society from those who have hijacked it.
I hope lots of people will join me.

About Melanie

Melanie Phillips is a British journalist and author. She is best known for her controversial column about political and social issues which currently appears in the Daily Mail. Awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996, she is the author of All Must Have Prizes, an acclaimed study of Britain's educational and moral crisis, which provoked the fury of educationists and the delight and relief of parents.
Read full biography

Books

• 
• 

THE LIBERAL DELUSION

THE LIBERAL DELUSION
 From the Liberal Delusion.com

Chapter One

Is western society based on a mistake? Fundamental to any society is its understanding of human nature. It shapes our worldview and explains other people’s behaviour. It affects attitudes and practices on a whole range of issues including: interpersonal relations, the upbringing and education of children, family policy, welfare, economics and penal policy. Our understanding of human nature is crucial, yet we rarely - if ever - discuss it. Since the 1960s the dominant view of human nature in the west has been a liberal one. The word ‘liberal’ is hard to define - a bit like nailing jelly to a wall. Nevertheless, here goes ! The word ‘liberal’ comes from the Latin ‘liber’ meaning free. Freedom lies at the heart of liberalism: free love; freedom from rules, regulations and restraints; freedom from external authority; freedom of thought; freedom from superstition and ignorance; freedom from oppression, hierarchy and privilege; freedom from the past and tradition.

In practice it has led to: the liberalisation of the laws on drinking alcohol, gambling, divorce and abortion, a sexually promiscuous society, economic liberalism with free markets and deregulation, and the ending of censorship. I hope it is clear that I am not using the word ‘liberal’ in any party political sense, but rather indicating a mindset and worldview. In other words ‘liberalism’ with a small ‘l’, not a capital ‘L’. Most liberals are decent well-meaning people, who are rightly concerned about fairness and social justice. Also in the past liberals played a positive role in fighting social and racial prejudices. However these positive aspects should not prevent criticism of liberal ideas in the present.

The belief in freedom rests on an unspoken assumption – the goodness of human nature. If we are good, it makes sense to increase freedom, because we do not need restrictions, rules, morality or religion. Freedom will not be abused; our natural goodness will prevent this. Therefore we can liberalise laws and adopt liberal attitudes, and no harm will come. So maximising freedom assumes human nature is essentially good. I believe this assumption is mistaken. In this book I aim to show that it is contradicted by recent scientific discoveries, by the insights of Freud and Jung, by the evidence of history and by the experience of social workers.

Our view of human nature has changed over time. For thousands of years Judeo-Christian societies were based on the Bible. In the story of the Garden of Eden God forewarned Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They ignored the warning and ate the forbidden fruit. As a result, they were driven out of the Garden. This allegory stands for the imperfection of human nature and the reality of evil. In religious jargon - we are sinners. This does not mean we are wholly bad – in the Middle Ages the word ‘sinner’ was used in archery for an arrow that fell short of its target. We are imperfect - not totally depraved. On this understanding children are sinners too and need to be disciplined and socialised by parents and the community, so they can become productive members of society. Also parents are wiser and more experienced than children, and so should be respected. In the words of Thomas Sowell, the leading African American philosopher, “Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of little barbarians, who must be civilised before it is too late.”^[4] In this tradition stands the 17^th century English thinker Thomas Hobbes, who regarded human beings as self-centred, and saw conflict as endemic in social life.

This Biblical view of a flawed human nature was challenged around 300 years ago in the Enlightenment, which turned traditional notions upside down. For example Rousseau claimed children are born wholly good, but later their families and society warp them. In his own words, “Man is born happy and good, but society corrupts him and makes him unhappy.”^[5] On his theory children are pure and innocent, whereas parents and society have been corrupted, so children are morally superior to adults. It follows that parents should respect their children who are leading us to a better world. These Enlightenment ideas partly explains our present reluctance to discipline children. Child-rearing and education have fundamentally altered over the last hundred years. We have gone from a strict, authoritarian approach, to ‘progressive’ ideas and child-centred learning. One contributor to this trend was the founder of Summerhill school - A. S. Neill, who believed children are “naturally wise and good.”^[6] So they should be given the maximum amount of freedom, and never be disciplined. He represents an extreme form of liberalism, but his and other ‘progressive’ ideas have seeped into the educational system, resulting in some secondary schools that are marked by ill-discipline and anarchy. In Britain today school councils of pupils have been set up, which in some cases have even appointed teachers. A friend of ours teaches 4 and 5 years olds at a local primary school. She has found recently that more and more of the children starting at the school are aggressive, assertive, disobedient and very difficult to control.

In 2010 Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at Kent University, wrote “A substantial group of parents have given up disciplining their kids altogether…. Powerful cultural pressures are making parents uncomfortable disciplining their children.”^[7] Parents have abandoned ‘tough love’ and try instead to be friends with their children. These ideas have empowered children and enfeebled teachers and parents, whose authority has been called into question. Their confidence in disciplining children has been undermined. Parents no longer feel able or willing to tell their children what to do. It seems now that children teach parents, rather that being taught by parents. As a result many children grow up knowing few boundaries, which often leads to unruly youths and anti-social behaviour. The riots in English cities in August 2011 are a stark illustration of this.

Also on this theory, criminals are essentially good, but have been warped by society, and so should be seen as victims of society, rather than offenders. This has affected our penal policies and the treatment of criminals. I helped run Victim Awareness courses in a local prison. At the end of one session, a group leader said that one of her group had been born very poor in Jamaica and wanted to make money – not unreasonably. He figured the best way was to run drugs into England. He did not have a British passport, so he had to use a fake one – not unreasonably. As a result he was now serving time for drug running. The group leader said we should think of him as a victim, not a wrongdoer. Additionally the prisoners in their cells have televisions, set-top boxes, computers and game consoles. They wear their own clothes; cook their own food; and a new block is being built with en-suite showers. One prisoner said to me - with no prompting on my part - “It’s like Butlins in here mate.”

However the liberal understanding of human nature has been contradicted by science, according to Steven Pinker, who is Professor of Psychology at Harvard. He argues that recent scientific discoveries relating to evolutionary psychology and genetics - including the Human Genome Project - have undermined the belief in inborn goodness. They have revealed a flawed human nature. He wrote, “Genetics and neuroscience show that a heart of darkness cannot always be blamed on parents and society.”^[8] In other words: the human capacity for evil is inborn. Pinker claims these discoveries undermine the worldview of many intellectuals. In his own words, “They eat away at the cherished assumptions of modern intellectual life.”^[9] Pinker rejects the idea of Richard Dawkins and others that the end-product of evolution is altruistic and unselfish human beings. Dawkins argues that blackbirds feed a cuckoo chick in their nest, because they are programmed to feed their own chicks, but their brains ‘misfire’ so they feed other chicks in their nest as well. He believes human brains misfire in a similar way, and as a result we love everyone, not just our kin. Pinker rejects this as nonsense. His stark conclusion is: “In a nutshell: Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong.”^[10] Far from mankind being innately good, Pinker gives a list of inherited human defects, including: the primacy of kinship; limited sharing within human groups; universality of violence, dominance and ethnocentrism; self-deception about our own wisdom and fairness; and a moral sense warped by kinship and friendship.^[11] If Pinker is right, then the idea that men and women are born good is unscientific and mistaken.

Liberal thinking was also rejected by Freud, who saw the mind as an arena of conflict between our conscious and unconscious minds, and between the superego (the conscience) and the id (the instincts such as the sex drive). Powerful forces in our unconscious minds have an influence on our thinking and behaviour of which we are unaware. Jung went further. He dismissed the notion of inborn goodness as nonsense. He held that an understanding of our flawed nature was necessary for us, but we are resistant to the truth. He wrote: “The jungle is in us, in our unconscious, and the psychologist who tries to expose the blind spot faces a thankless task. The human mind carefully refrains from looking into itself.”^[12] And “All that nonsense about man’s inborn goodness, which has addled so many brains after the dogma of Original Sin was no longer understood, was blown to the winds by Freud, and the little that remains will, let us hope, be driven out for good by the barbarism of the twentieth century.”^[13] [Original sin is religious jargon for the idea that we are born imperfect and sinful, rather than innately wise and good.]

Criticism of liberal values has also come from the youth worker and pamphleteer Shaun Bailey. He grew up in a deprived inner city part of London and set up a charity called MyGeneration, which works with disadvantaged youngsters. His background is in the West Indian community of west London, where he was brought up by a single mother on a council estate. He claims liberalism harms the poor, “The more liberal we have become, the more the poor have suffered.”^[14] He describes the outcome of liberal policies as: a lack of discipline in schools; the erosion of marriage; the subversion of parental authority; encouraging free love and casual sex; fostering dependency; and the relaxation of the laws governing drugs and alcohol. He accuses the middle-class liberals of living their lovely lives in leafy suburbs unaware of the damage their policies cause to working class communities.

History too provides plenty of evidence of human evil. The 20^th century showed the ugly side of mankind: the slaughter in the trenches in World War One; the deaths of over 120 million under communism - 50 million in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1953, 70 million peacetime deaths under Mao, plus those who died in the killing fields of Cambodia and elsewhere.^[15] These deaths are in addition to the 6 million victims of the Holocaust. Everyday there are news stories of murder, violence and war. Anthropologists have found that most primitive societies are violent and conflict-ridden, thus confirming human nature is flawed. So the evidence against the belief in innate human goodness comes from science, psychology, history, anthropology and social workers.

Despite all this evidence liberalism has not merely survived, it has become dominant in western societies. This is a puzzle. Why does it persist in the face of so many objections, and the evidence of human evil in history? The answer, I believe, lies in its emotional appeal. In his book The God Delusion Richard Dawkins exemplifies this, writing, “I dearly want to believe we do not need policing - whether by God or each other – in order to stop us behaving in a selfish or criminal manner.”^[16] This is sentimental and unscientific. It is based on ignorance of human psychology and history. It may be easy to think mankind is good, if you have been brought up by loving parents in a nice area and led a sheltered life. Your fundamental assumption is - unselfishness and kindness are normal. You may be surprised by reports of child abuse, domestic violence and murder, as well as bloodshed in other parts of the world, but you regard these as exceptions. One self-styled liberal said to me, “To be frank I live in a middle-class bubble. I’m not really aware of what goes on in poor communities.”

Many people are deeply wedded to their utopian worldview. They resist any questioning of it. We prefer to think of ourselves as wise, rational and virtuous, rather than flawed, self-centred and fallible. It is nice to think that other human beings are essentially good. I remember discussing the topic with a nice old lady, who lived in a village in the Chilterns. She told me she would be depressed if she thought other people were unkind and bad; she preferred to believe in human goodness. She said to me, “I don’t want to believe that mankind is flawed.” Was she a seeker after truth or someone who had found her comfort blanket? T. S. Eliot wrote, “Humankind cannot bear very much reality.”^[17] However there is a problem with the rose-tinted and optimistic view of human nature: it can lead, for example, to a failure to socialise and discipline children, and then the outcome can be anti-social behaviour. Whereas if you accept reality, you can take steps to deal with the problems. But haven’t some societies been too strict and disciplined? Yes, that is true. However the abuse does not remove the use. Just because some societies have been too disciplinarian, does not mean there is no place for discipline.

It was in the 1960s that a liberal and progressive consensus came to dominate British society. The Labour Home Secretary Roy Jenkins claimed a liberal society was a civilised one. However, looking round Britain today, ‘civilised’ is not always the word that comes to mind. Our society is marked by binge drinking, broken families, a growth in violent crime and a decline in trust. We have taken sexual liberation too far and have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe. As Jung observed, humanity only thrives when spirit and instinct are in harmony, “Too much of the animal distorts the civilised man, too much civilisation makes sick animals.”^[18] We have gone from the Victorian society’s denial of sex, to one that is obsessed by sex: from the dominance of the superego, to the triumph of the id. Our phoney understanding of Freud believes that we should never deny our sexual urges, and that any thwarting of our sexual instincts will result in neurosis.

My attempts to discuss these ideas with liberal friends have met with very limited success. In his book Liberalism and its Discontents, the distinguished American historian Alan Brinkley wrote of, “An unwillingness or inability of many liberals to look sceptically or critically at their own values and assumptions.“^[19] I have often met a refusal to engage with the evidence and the arguments. Steven Pinker has also encountered opposition and personal abuse. Those who challenge the liberal hegemony have been called ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’. Pinker wrote, “Part of the responsibility of intellectuals is not to trivialise the horror of Nazism by exploiting it for rhetorical clout in academic cat-fights. Linking people you disagree with to Nazism does nothing for the memory of Hitler’s victims, or for the effort to prevent other genocides.”^[20]

So is this book a straight-forward attack on liberalism? No. It is not as simple as that. There are some areas where I believe liberals are right. I acknowledge that some liberalism is necessary and beneficial. Few would want to go back to the restrictions of the Victorian era or live under a despot. There was also a need to free us from a negative attitude to sex. Liberals are right to be concerned about inequality and to fight for social justice. There still remain great inequalities and their campaign for greater fairness deserves support. I welcome the undermining of the class system, the greater opportunities open to women, and the improved treatment of racial and sexual minorities – the decriminalising of homosexuality is an obvious example. However some liberals seem to think that they have a monopoly of caring. Thomas Sowell, the leading African-American philosopher, commented “Liberals assume that if you don’t accept their policies, then you don’t care about the people they want to help.”^[21]

There is, I believe, a downside to liberalism. Freedom has often turned into selfish hedonism. We have neglected other values: the importance of social cohesion, of duties, obligations and responsibilities to others. We have lost ideals of self-restraint and self-discipline. So my argument is not that all liberalism is bad, but rather that in many areas we have become too liberal; that the liberal pendulum has swung too far. Liberty has become licence. Liberalism is like cholesterol: there are good and bad sorts. Therefore we urgently need to evaluate the positive and negative aspects of liberalism, and to discard those which harm society. In the next chapter I present the evidence against the belief in the goodness of human nature from science, anthropology, psychology and history.

[1] J-J Rousseau Seconde Lettre à Malesherbes 12 Janvier 1762 Hachette ed X pp.301-302

[2] Steven Pinker The Blank Slate (London Allen Lane 2002 ) Preface page xi

[3] George Orwell The Freedom of the Press (an essay originally drafted as a Preface to Animal Farm), The Times Literary Supplement, 15 September 1972

[4] Thomas Sowell A Conflict of Visions (USA Basic Books 2002) p. 162.

[5] “Que la nature a fait l’homme heureux et bon, mais que la société le deprave et le rend misérable.” Troisième Dialogue (Hachette ed IX 287) cited by E. Cassirer The Question of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (USA Columbia University Press 1963) p. 18.

[6] A. S. Neill Summerhill ( London Pelican Books 1968) p. 20

[7] Frank Furedi interview in The Sunday Times 21/2/2010

[8] Steven Pinker The Blank Slate (London Allen Lane 2002 ) p. 51

[9] Pinker p. 58

[10] Pinker p. 56

[11] Pinker p. 294

[12] C G Jung Jung Letters (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1976) Vol II p. 608 Letter to Mr. Leo P. Holliday dated 6 November 1960

[13] C G Jung Psychological Reflections (London Routledge and Kegan Paul 1971) p. 277

[14] Shaun Bailey No Man’s Land (London Centre for Policy Studies) 2 May 2007 

[15] The figure of 51million in the case of the Soviet Union and Soviet Russia see Norman Davies book Europe(London Pimlico 1997) based on the work of Robert Conquest and Roy Medvedev (Appendix III) and the figure of 70 million under Mao see Mao: the Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday (London Jonathan Cape 2005)

[16] Richard Dawkins The God Delusion (London Transworld Publishers 2006) p. 260

[17] T S Eliot Burnt Norton (The Four Quartets)

[18] C. G. Jung Psychological Reflections (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 1971) p. 105

[19] Alan Brinkley Liberalism and its Discontents (Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University Press 1998) p. xi

[20] Pinker p.154

[21] Thomas Sowell widely attributed but unsourced