We are their tax-slaves.

The banking crash was devised. How could it not be - these people who lend massive sums to major banks, who have the money to break and then bail-out nations, are not fools.

Unlimited short term funds were made unrestrictedly available to banks in the UK, Europe, the US and elsewhere .

Rather than banks pass the opportunity to make profit from this abundance, any lending opportunity was taken; especially of-cause via packages of sub-prime debt from the US. A feeding frenzy ensued.

When, after several years and clear warnings aplenty, the international financiers pulled the plug on this trade, refusing to provide further 'rolling' short-term loans on the banks long-term liabilities. The outcome was that we see today. Stitched-up.

Our governments could have said these short term loans would not be paid, but mixed in with this debt was money from depositors of all sorts. Too many innocents would be ruined if the unravelling was not possible and immediate. Our banking and finance industry would be ruined forever. The UK economy, as we know it, would be dead.

And the government guarantee of banks is binding - the tax payers must foot the bill. That is the deal - hindsight about mixed banking does not wash. The only opportunity of escape from atonement to the liability would be default or to prove the international lenders deliberately caused the situation to occur or were wilfully negligent.

So it is the same international lenders who provide the 'bailout' funds now, just today underwritten by the tax payers, as provided the excessive and irresponsible liquidity that caused and fuelled the situation from the outset.

We are their tax-slaves. The fools we think can run our nation states, at best, have been played like a fiddle or, more probably, are complicit in the crime.

But of-cause every cloud does have a silver-lining. Normally this onerous level of national debt has been brought-about by vast and destructive war. History provides evidence that the self-same forces of international finance are the ones who previously caused these wars, provoked to produce the same outcome - interest on national debt.

Maybe dear Tony and Gordon are to be heralded as national heroes; saving us all the unpleasantness of war and just saddling us with the resulting national debt instead. Great.

If you cannot beat it; join it.

There will be a new EU agency to add to the list soon: the new EU Intelligence and Internal Security Unit (read 'Committee for State Security' or 'Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti' (KGB) to give it its proper title). Anticipated by one Olivier Luyckx, who's own experience appears to start and end at his graceful expertise for riding the EU gravy train.

Since MI6 hold the business end of all the strings attached to Baroness Catherine Ashton's every move (another prime gravy surfer) we can only hope they will truss-up too our new servant proposed to head the unit, Comrade Gilles de Kerchove.

One way out of this mess is to sink it through total non-cooperation; starting with keeping as much of your money out of the hands of 'the state' by every means possible. Another technique, though less robust, is to take it over from the inside.

If you cannot beat it; join it. Joint it and then beat it to death from the inside.

From The Horse's Mouth?

'Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers.

These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.'

Incorrectly attributed to Montagu Norman

What a State we are in

If my bus to work was hijacked by pirates I would not willingly pay the fare - only at the point of a gun.

To my mind, there is only one form of non-violent revolution we can undertake and that is withholding our cooperation with the state: in each and every way we can.

The state no longer represents the interests of the people (as if it ever did). No guilt should be felt in this process of revolution - that guilt is a false paradigm to which we have been endlessly trained.

The state must end: we will not change the state, it is irrevocably corrupt. This state has us in its grip and that grip looks to be only set to tighten, tighten till we become so weak we can struggle no more.

There are those who rest in ignorance of this truth - for now they are the many. There are those who would do the state's bidding, for their own gain. And there are the awake. The awake, few though they may be, outnumber the state's insiders more than ten to one - these insiders need to be, and rightly always have been, fearful.

We must dismantle the state before the installation of the mechanisms of totalitarian control are imposable to resist. Those who do not see this, I believe, are regrettably lost in denial.

Protest by denying the state your cooperation and your tithe wherever you can. How can you be breaking an honourable law if that law is one of an illegitimate state? Only when we refuse to respect the state's authority will its usurped power be defused.

Julian Assange and WonkiLeaks Inc.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, claimed today he was in possession of “insurance” files on Rupert Murdoch and his global media company, News Corporation

One should stand back and take an exceptionally clear-headed look at Julian Assange and WonkiLeaks Inc. The take one derives should not be a simple choice between 'good or bad' - between important truths revealed or damage to national interests. The third possibility (probability) is that this is a (very light Grey) psychological operation (PSYOP) on behalf of 'the powers that be'.

The material revealed has done little to dent the US Administration/Military/CIA (or their one true highly influencing comrade). Nothing of significance has been publicly revealed that has not already been clearly understood by anyone with a hint of an enquiring mind. Much of the US (NeoCon style) 'world view' has, yet again, been unequivocally delineated in a very public arena by this campaign. The playground bully dominance of the US is instead asserted.

Other national party's interests have been damaged or slapped-down. Other party's are no-doubt in fear of what about them could yet be revealed. Does that really include Rupert Murdoch and his 'News Corporation'. Give me a break!

Black and Maxwell may have strayed from the path and paid a heavy price. Rupert Murdoch is in another dimension to those fellows - they were backstreet traders by comparison.

If Julian Assange had one ounce of bona-fide independent-media, truth revealing, legitimacy and could really dig the dirt on Rupert Murdoch he should not hesitate to publish immediately; he would not hesitate to publish immediately.

Instead this threat can be nothing more than a sham from a patsy. A feeble assertion to attempt to separate WackiLumps from the corporate/politically controlled and manipulated mainstream-media of which it (on the balance of probability) is nothing but an intrinsic part - only conducting a specialist function but disseminating propaganda nonetheless.

The further damage to the already deeply limited ability of our mainstream media to publish real but uncomfortable truths is asserted. And the warning to independent news providers can not be ignored either. This is the prime objective I am reluctantly sure.

Instead Assange continues to fake his independence and pretends he can hold to ransom the most enduringly powerful (known) man in the world. Ha ha ha!

WonkiDrips Agenda

If WikiLeaks were truly agents of change; exposing state crimes, openly publishing secret information, an independent platform for whistle-blowers, would there not be some tangible evidence of this in the material they release?  Instead, it is clear no lasting damage has been done.

From those who work a little harder assembling the raw material, opinions and facts, from which they draw their own reasoned conclusions, other than just entirely drawing a ready made paradigm from a compliant 'mainstream media', WikiLeaks is being broadly decried as nothing less than a sham.  A propaganda operation with a clear agenda.

There are not two but three conclusions to draw of WikiLeaks; 1. they damage 'western' security and interests, 2. they are providing an important 'check and balance' - exposing misdeeds, or 3. they have been deliberately feed information and the process of  (so called) 'redaction' is a further control in the process to manage the effect of the release for optimum political effect.

The key rafts of independent 'truth' opinion, available almost exclusively via the internet, study and consider apparent falsehoods behind; the attacks of 9/11 including subsequent events, man-made climate change and, steaming from both of these, the recognition of a drive toward an authoritarian neo-socialist global governance.  WikiLeaks is no ally to these campaigns to expose these truths.

WikiLeaks has made statements which clearly attempt to deny the veracity of such truth movements and has not ever been first to release any documents which assist either movement's case.  Indeed it is now becoming evident WikiLeaks has been and continues to be fostered by some of the very elite considered to be the forces serving and behind the agendas these truth campaigns have set-out to expose.

Aside from the immediate political agenda actually being served, by the managed release of these selected and censored documents, the wider danger is the resultant demand for a new series of international legal mechanisms to police the content of the internet.

Wikirrigation - By means of water, we give life to everything. - Koran, 21:30

On one hand it is important that the freedom to spread information, and opinions, of a sensitive political nature is preserved; is not degraded or amended especially via the internet. It is important political force is not unduly wheedled. International authorities handling of WikiLeaks should not be allowed to set any precedents and must not be prejudicial, which currently it looks very much to be. Potentially spurious allegations should be dealt with as they would for any other individual of political significance who may be a target for false attacks.

On the other hand none of this situation means Julian Assange should be considered to actually be that which he appears, is cast, to be. He should not be taken to be anything less than a covert mouth-piece of a US/Israeli imperial/militaristic agenda. The information he is dispersing, these so called US diplomatic cables, can be seen to be not actually doing the US or Israel any real significant or lasting harm. Any harm is almost entirely reserved for other parties and indeed whilst little 'new' material is being revealed it can be seen to only consolidate a certain 'world view' - very conveniently.

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks warrant one's extremely close factual background examination before going too far down the line of 'being on side' with them; of thinking what they reveal represents a meaningful alternative world view.

Indeed any general damage to journalist's confidence and freedom, to result from this apparent debacle, could be no less a part of a predestined outcome also.