Reinvent Democracy by Creating Three Dimensional 3D Democracy

Posts tagged ‘Britain’

Quotes and Comments Attributed to Prince Philip

Prince Philip The Duke of Edinburgh

Prince Philip The Duke of Edinburgh

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is quite famous for making some rather embarrassing and funny comments. This is a list of some of his own words, and comments attributed to Prince Philip:

Are you Indian or Pakistani? I can never tell the difference between you chaps. At Washington Embassy reception for Commonwealth members.

British women can’t cook; they are very good at decorating food and making it attractive. Addressing mainly female audience at Scottish Rural Women’s Institute Display in 1966.

Do you still throw spears at each other? To Australian Aborigines, during a visit to Queensland, 2002.

I don’t think a prostitute is more moral than a wife, but they are doing the same thing. Speech in December 1988, dismissing claims that those who sell slaughtered meat have greater moral authority than those who participate in blood sports.

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation. In August 1988, in an interview with Deutsche Presse-Agentur

I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus. In 1987, he wrote in his foreword to a book  “If I Were an Animal” – UK, Robin Clark Ltd.

So you’re responsible for the kind of crap Channel Four produces! Speaking to then chairman of the channel, Michael Bishop, in 1962

Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf. To group of deaf children standing next to Jamaican steel drum band, on visit to new National Assembly for Wales, 1999.

When a man opens the car door for his wife, it’s either a new car of a new wife. March 1988.

Dontopedalogy is the science of opening your mouth and putting your foot in it, a science which I have practiced for a good many years. Address to General Dental Council, quoted in Time November 21, 1960.

Can you tell the difference between them? On being told by President Obama that he’d had breakfast with the leaders of the UK, China and Russia

People think there’s a rigid class system here, but dukes have even been known to marry chorus girls. Some have even married Americans. In 2000

How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test. To Scottish driving instructor, 1995.

Tolerance is the one essential ingredient … You can take it from me that the Queen has the quality of tolerance in abundance. His recipe for a successful marriage, during celebrations for their golden wedding anniversary, November 1997.

If it has got four legs and is not a chair, if it has two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it. Commenting on Chinese eating habits to World Wildlife Fund conference in 1986.

Brazilians live there. On key problems facing Brazil

You have mosquitos. I have the Press. To the matron of a hospital in the Caribbean

Ghastly. Commenting on Beijing, China, during 1986 official visit there.

Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed. At the height of the recession in 1981.

If you stay here much longer you’ll all be slitty-eyed. To British students in China during Royal visit there in 1986.

It looks as if it was put in by an Indian. Pointing at an old-fashioned fuse box while on a tour of a factory near Edinburgh.

Bloody silly fool! Referring to a Cambridge University car park attendant who failed to recognize him, 1997.

Aren’t most of you descended from pirates? To islander in the Cayman Islands, 1994.

You managed not to get eaten, then. To student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea in 1998, suggesting Papuan tribes people were still cannibals.

Aren’t there any male supervisors? This is a nanny city. In San Francisco on meeting five city officials – all of whom were female.

People usually say that after a fire it’s the water damage that’s the worst. We’re STILL trying to dry out Windsor castle. To grieving residents of Lockerbie, Scotland, during a 1993 visit after a plane exploded and crashed into the town, killing everyone on board and several people on the ground (and shortly after a fire swept through one wing of Windsor Castle).

We don’t come here for our health. We can think of other ways of enjoying ourselves. On Canada.

You can’t have been here that long, you haven’t got a potbelly. To a Briton residing in Hungary, 1993.

You were playing your instruments weren’t you? Or do you have tape recorders under your seats? Congratulating a school band on their performance in Australia.

You are a woman, aren’t you? In Kenya in 1984, after accepting a gift from an indigenous woman.

If you gave a seven-year-old a brush and paints he’d produce something like that. In The Sudan, after viewing some of the paintings housed in the country’s ethnic museum.

I would like to go to Russia very much – although the bastards murdered half my family. In 1967, asked if he would like to visit the Soviet Union.

What do you gargle with – pebbles? To singer Tom Jones, after 1969 Royal Variety Performance.

I never see any home cooking – all I get is fancy stuff. Remark in 1962 taken as a slight against Buckingham Palace chefs, and later had to be qualified.

All money nowadays seems to be produced with a natural homing instinct for the Treasury. May 1963.

We live in what virtually amounts to a museum – which does not happen to a lot of people. February 1964.

It’s a pleasant change to be in a country that isn’t ruled by its people. To Alfredo Stroessner, the Paraguayan dictator.

You look like you’re ready for bed! To the President of Nigeria, dressed in traditional robes

The problem with London is the tourists. They cause the congestion. If we could just stop tourism, we could stop the congestion. On the London Traffic Debate

The best thing to do with a degree is to forget it. At the University of Salford.

Where did you get the hat? To his wife, the Queen, after her coronation

Any bloody fool can lay a wreath at the thingamy. Discussing his role in an interview with Jeremy Paxman.

Young people are the same as they always were. They are just as ignorant. At the 50th anniversary of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards scheme.

You must be out of your minds. To Solomon Islanders, on being told that their population growth was 5 per cent a year, in 1982.

Who are you? Simon Kelner: “I’m the editor-in-chief of The Independent, Sir.” “What are you doing here?” “You invited me.” “Well, you didn’t have to come!” An exchange at a press reception to mark the Golden Jubilee in 2002.

Warning: Some of these Quotes are Dubiously and may not be said by HRH Prince Philip.

Ghana Commemorates Christiansborg Crossroad Shooting

Ghana Commemorates Christiansborg Crossroad Shooting

Ghana Commemorates Christiansborg Crossroad Shooting

Ghana commemorates the 63rd anniversary of the 28 February Christiansborg, Crossroad shooting.

[On 28th February 1948 veterans of world war two, who had fought with the Gold Coast Regiment of the Royal West African Frontier Force, organised a peaceful demonstration marching to Christiansborg Castle, Accra, Gold Coast (Ghana), to hand in a petition to the colonial governor, demanding that they receive end of war benefits and pay which they had been promised.
Before reaching the castle the Veterans were ordered to disperse by the colonial police chief. When they refused he opened fire on them instantly killing three – Sergeant Adjetey, Corporal Attipoe and Private Odartey Lamptey.

Angered by this unwarranted violence, against unarmed men, and continued injustices suffered by the population in general, people in Accra and other towns and cities took to the streets, attacking European and Asian businesses and property. Immediately after the outbreak of these violent disturbances the leadership of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC), a political organisation advocating an end to colonialism, sent a cable to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in London expressing their belief that:
“…unless Colonial Government is changed and a new Government of the people and their Chiefs installed at the centre immediately, the conduct of masses now completely out of control with strikes threatened in Police quarters, and rank and file Police indifferent to orders of Officers, will continue and result in worse violent and irresponsible acts by uncontrolled people.”

The UGCC cable further stated that:
“Working Committee United Gold Coast Convention declare they are prepared and ready to take over interim Government. We ask in name of oppressed, inarticulate, misruled and misgoverned people and their Chiefs that Special Commissioner be sent out immediately to hand over Government to interim Government of Chief and People and to witness immediate calling of Constituent Assembly”

The people’s protests lasted five days. By 1st March the colonial governor had declared a state of emergency and put in place a new Riot Act. On 12th March the governor ordered the arrest of “The Big Six,” (Ebenezer Ako-Adjei; Edward Akufo-Addo; J. B. Danquah;    Kwame Nkrumah; Emmanuel Obetsebi-Lamptey; William Ofori Atta) leading members of the UGCC, which included Kwame Nkrumah, as he believed they were responsible for orchestrating the disturbances. The Big Six were incarcerated in remote northern parts of the country.

It was around this time that Nkrumah and the other five began to have significant disagreements over the direction of the movement for independence. By 1949 Nkrumah had broken away from the UGCC to form the Convention People’s Party (CPP) taking the masses of the people with him. The CPP, through a campaign of “Positive Action,” achieved an end to the Gold Coast colony and brought the new dawn of independent Ghana on 6th March 1957]

By: Amma Fosuah Poku Source: Pan-Africanist Briefs

[A solemn flag raising and wreath laying ceremony will be held at the newly created Nationalism Park, close to the Freedom Monument at Osu in Accra tomorrow, February 28, to commemorate the 63rd anniversary of the 28 February Christiansborg, Crossroad shooting.

The event which is celebrated every year to honour the three ex-servicemen who were killed in 1948 by the colonial police, while marching to the Osu Castle to present a petition to the then Governor, will see a lot of activities this year, with the police and the military bands in attendance.

A contingent made up of officers from the Ghana Army, Navy, Air Force, Police and the Veterans Association of Ghana (VAG) will also be on parade.

Also expected to grace the occasion will be Vice-President John Mahama, Ministers of state, Members of Parliament, members of the diplomatic corps, Service commanders of the various security agencies, traditional rulers, the clergy and other identifiable groups.

After the wreath laying, the Ga Asafo and Kolomashie groups will take over until 6pm. Later that evening at 7pm, there will be a re-enactment of the shooting incident at the Nationalism Park.

The Historical Society of Ghana will also hold a public lecture on the theme“Celebrating Our Heroes: The Importance Of 28 February To The Independence Of Ghana,” at the Civil Servants and Local Government Staff Association of Ghana (CLOGSAG) auditorium, Ministries, Accra, later in the afternoon of Tuesday, February28, 2012, between 3:00pm and 6:00pm.

It would be recalled that, on that sorrowful Saturday, 28th February 1948, before noon, a number of unarmed ex-servicemen were on a march from Accra to the Christiansborg Castle to present a petition to the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief, Sir Gerald Creasy, when they were intercepted at the Christiansborg Crossroad by a contingent of armed policemen, led by a British Superintendent, Colin Imray.

Superintendent Imray ordered the ex-servicemen to disperse, but they did not. He then gave orders to the police to open fire on the ex-service men, but that too did not deter them, so Superintendent Imray himself fired at the Ex-servicemen, killing Sergeant Adjetey, Cpl Attipoe and Private Odartey Lamptey, instantly in cold blood.

The news about the death of the gallant Ex-servicemen spread rapidly, leading to a situation where law and order broke down in Accra and other parts of the country, which was popularly referred to as the 1948 disturbances.

This encouraged the anti-colonial movements to press the British government to institute a committee to investigate the killings and the consequent general disorder.

The committee recommended self- government for the Gold Coast, and subsequently, led to the attainment of political independence for the country on March 6, 1957.]

The True Statesman, Source: Modern Ghana

Assaults on Remaining Old Decency in Europe

Assaults on Remaining Old Decency in Europe

Assaults on Remaining Old Decency in Europe

The troubles of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy are they really about debts and fiscal discipline? I guess not. Greece always remained the bastion of good national values and strong culture of decency. These values and principles are under assaults from the governments of big new Europa. Sovereign debts and bankruptcy are just few weapons in their arsenal for swallowing the remaining pockets of good old Europe.

Poland and few other countries, while not yet in direct firing, are very well aware of that and watching the grave developments anxiously and cautiously; and asking themselves who is next in the hit list.

The relationship between Germany and France despite being well-coordinated for now is very far from reliable and lasting. The third engine of new Europa, Britain, is discovering that its interests and relationship with France and Germany are at risk from power shifting and the EU assumption that the UK is in the periphery of Europa. The government of France is very content with role of assistant or deputy in the EU helm. Britain is definitely not.

Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy cannot sustain for long time the new pattern of interference, EU-appointed bureaucrat; and erosion of real democracy. The financiers’ and political conflicts in the EU are making bad economies even worse.

Will Greece, and other potential candidates, be allowed to pull out of the EU? The answer now is definitely NO; because even if Greece is not willing to accept the bailout with the attached conditions, the EU is still want to take Greece. New Europe cannot live with pain in the ***.

Sick from BBC, CNN, France 24 and JSC Lies?

Western media falsifies the news

Western Media Falsifies the News

Following the dramatic events in several countries in Ivory Coast, Occupy Movements, North Africa and the Middle East makes evident conclusions that these channels must be mouthpieces of the propaganda system in the US army division of psychological warfare and the intelligence machinery. Even the state-owned channels of undemocratic regimes are becoming more professional and ethical than this shame list.

I feel very sorry for those presenters who are working there against their conscience and principles just to avoid unemployment or demotion.

I assume that the directors and editors of these outlets are in some ways on the pay list of the US government and they hold military ranks. (If this is not the reality then they are strongly advised to demand that).

[Lying is probably one of the most common wrong acts that we carry out. Most people would condemn lying except when there’s a good reason for it.] From: BBC Ethics Guide

Here, is an excellent article written by Adrian Salbuchi, an Argentine geopolitical analyst/Economist, exposing the methods they use to control the populace through ‘Newspeak’. It was published by RT, Russia Today, on 29 November, 2011

George Orwell’s Guide to the News**

The Western mainstream media falsifies the news resorting to euphemisms, half-truths and lies in the best (worst) style of George Orwell’s novel 1984. We all live in the unreal world of “Newspeak” used by the Global Power Elite to control our minds.

Man gets confused when things that happen around him and to him, or which are done in his name, cannot be properly grasped, understood or made sense of. Normally, such confusion leads to inaction. If you’re lost at night in the middle of a forest but you can still see the stars, then a bit of astronomical knowledge will at least quickly tell you which way is north. But if it’s cloudy or you’re ignorant of the constellations in starry heaven, then you might as well light up a fire and do nothing until dawn…. You’re Lost!

Today, mainstream media coverage uses programmed distortion, confusion, even outright lying when its Money Power masters order it to support the “official story” on any major political, economic or financial process. When looked at closely, however, the “official story” of things can be seen to be inaccurate, misleading, often hardly believable if not downright stupid.

Examples of this: Iraq’s inexistent WMD’s leading to the invasion and destruction of that country; global mega-banker bail-outs with taxpayer money; irrational US diplomatic, military, financial and ideological alignment to Israeli objectives; “we-killed-Osama-Bin-Laden-and-dumped-his-body-into-the-sea”; and the wide array of “whodunits” surrounding 9/11 in New York and Washington, 7/7 in London, the AMIA/Israeli Embassy attacks in Buenos Aires in 1992/1994, and – of course – that all time favorite: who shot JFK…?

These are but a few of the paradigmatic cases that have at least served to trigger millions of people to wake up and think with their own minds instead of the mainstream media’s! But unfortunately the vast majority of such cases are not so clear-cut. The vast majority of Newspeak lies are like knots, difficult to untie as they carry built-in complexity resembling Gordian Knots. And, as with all Gordian Knots, you need to cut right through them, and this requires swift and precise action plus a good measure of intellectual courage.

To give an example of what we say, let’s take a quick look at how a “Newspeak” operation works. It requires sequential planning, it requires time, it requires proper logistics, it requires “credible” spokespeople in public and private sectors, it requires choosing the right words and images at the right time and in the right circumstances.

So, let’s say the Global Power Elite – working through the governments of the US, UK, EU into which they are deeply embedded, and joint-venturing with a wide array of media outlets, defense companies, oil companies, security and construction companies, and powerful lobbies – decide that they wish to overrun and destroy a specific country… Libya, for example…

How do they ensure that “the international community” will just quietly look on (except for the still relatively small minority of voices that are increasingly raising hell against them)?

The Seven Step Mainstream Media Country Destruction Guide

1. First, they start by targeting a country ripe for “Regime Change”, and brand it a “rogue state”; then…

2. They arm, train, finance local terrorist groups through CIA, MI6, Mossad, Al-Qaeda (a CIA operation), drug cartels (often CIA operations) and call them “freedom fighters”; then…

3. As mock UN Security Council Resolutions are staged that rain death and destruction upon millions of civilians, they call it “UN sanctions to protect civilians”; then…

4. They spread flagrant lies through their “newsrooms” and paid journalists, and call it “the international community’s concerns expressed by prestigious spokespeople and analysts…” then…

5. They bomb, invade and begin to control the target country and call it “liberation”; then…

6. As the target country falls fully under their control, they impose “the kind of democracy that we want to see” (as Hillary Clinton before visiting Egypt and Tunisia on March 10, 2011), until finally…

7. They steal appetizing oil, mineral and agricultural reserves handing them over to Global Power Elite corporations, and impose unnecessary private banking debt and call it “foreign investment and reconstruction.”

Their keynotes are: Force and Hypocrisy, which they have used time and again to destroy entire countries, always in the name of “freedom”, “democracy”, “peace” and “human rights”. Utmost force and violence is used to achieve their ends and goals.

Their Elders recommended this many decades ago in a blueprint for World Domination written on a hoary manuscript of old…

“What did you say…? That you don’t want to be ‘liberated’ and ‘democratized’?!?”

“Then, take this Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi, Berlin, Dresden, Baghdad, and Basra!! Take that Tokyo, Gaza, Lebanon, Kabul, Pakistan, Tripoli, Belgrade, Egypt, El Salvador and Grenada!! And take that, Panama, Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Somalia, Africa!!”

Always bombing people to smithereens… Always, of course, in the name of “freedom”, “democracy”, “peace” and “human rights”

Written by Adrian Salbuchi for RTAdrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina.

**George Orwell is the pen name of English novelist and journalist Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950) Considered perhaps the 20th century’s best chronicler of English culture, Orwell wrote literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. He is best known for the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and the allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945), which together have sold more copies than any two books by any other 20th-century author. His book Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, is widely acclaimed, as are his numerous essays on politics, literature, language and culture. In 2008, The Times ranked him second on a list of “The 50 greatest British writers since 1945”.

Gulf Arab States Must Be Democratized Now

Heads of States of the Gulf Cooperation Council GCC

Heads of States of the Gulf Cooperation Council GCC

The world know very well that fair, free and transparent governance is essential demand and right for all nations without exceptions. The USA, France and Britain are increasingly imposing non-peaceful and military changes to Arab states and to North and West Africa. Gulf Arab states, like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, are instrumental in the western new invasive policy of bringing freedom, justice and democracy to other Arab states like Syria, Egypt and Yemen.

These agent countries are increasingly bullying and threatening Arab governments that are considered unfriendly with NATO and western military intervention under resolutions crafted in the UN similar to what they did in Libya. They are blustering while they are rejecting reforms in their countries and protecting the most corrupt Arab regimes. This new western intrusive policy is actually not driven by the great principles freedom, justice and democracy; nor by the legitimate aspirations of the people of the targeted countries.

The West and their Gulf agents are indeed just working on regime change with the objective of appeasing and engaging Islamists and, more importantly, bringing into power regimes that shall be “business friendly” with the USA, France and Britain. The war on terrorism was an expensive fiasco so the west decided to shift to a new policy of engagement and cooperation with terrorism. Western interests are the actual objectives; and not the values and principles of freedom, justice and democracy.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates and the rest of Gulf Cooperation Council are way behind in the areas of freedom, justice and democracy. These countries are absolute monarchies and sheikhdoms where nepotism, exclusion and non-compliance with most universal declarations are the basis of their governance. Their records in human rights, labor rights, non-discrimination, non-segregation, freedom of expression, freedom of faith, government transparency, wealth control, gender, equal opportunities, civic institutions, separation of powers, elections,  rule of Law, and partisan politics are indeed very appalling; if non-existence altogether.

Ironically, the governments targeted by Gulf Arab States are by far better than them despite these governments are well below the accepted local and universal standards.

What are really needed in these Gulf Arab States are the following:
1.    Formation of elected and influential legislative parliaments;
2.    Separation of powers, legislative, executive, judiciary, and monarchy;
3.    The rule of law and equal opportunities;
4.    Guarantees and protection for political opposition;
5.    Limit the number of terms of head of state, first minister, or any public officer;
6.    Allowing peaceful demonstrations and labor strikes;
7.    Legitimize the formation of political parties;
8.    Free private press and media;
9.    Regular, free, fair and monitored elections;
10.    Draft and referendum state constitution;
11.    Regulate peaceful system for transfer of powers;
12.    Endorsing and implementing all major universal declarations;

Without implementing, or at least just starting, such essential long overdue reforms Gulf Arab States cannot and must not try to preach or act as instruments for bringing freedom, justice and democracy to any country in the world. And if they are unwilling to implement these reforms then the world must engage other countries with better records; like India, South Africa or Brazil.

The Arab League, the African Union and the UN must put the goal of democratization in the Gulf Arab states on top of their agendas and a main essential requirement for bilateral and international cooperation.

Liberal Nationalism against Left and Right Politics in Africa

The National Liberal Party (NLP) (UK) published on January 7, 2012 this article about Nationalism and Liberalism in Africa:

[Over the last year we have been approached by a number of persons outside the UK keen on exploring, even promoting, the ideology of National Liberalism. Given that it first emerged as an active force in continental Europe in the mid 19th century, contacts from there was not surprising. However, we have received interest from further afield in areas with no blatant NL tradition such as Africa.

One person making contact is Tarig Anter, a retired civil engineer based in Khartoum, Sudan. He says his main project is the design of new form of national democracy and system of governance, which he calls “Three Dimensional Democracy”. (XYZ democracy), in contrast to the Western democratic system which he says has corrupted the region’s politicians. He is part of a new breed of African who is trying to understand why his continent is suffering so much. He places much of the blame on the US and the ‘New World Order’ and their quest to control the world’s resources. But, he says he doesn’t “blame the USA or Europe but rather I blame the powers that are controlling them and I feel that Europeans are Americans are either victims or tools, but not the shakers and makers of their systems which are wrongly described as democratic and mistakenly considered models.”

In his/their quest for an alternative, we hope they will turn, not to dictatorship or authoritarianism, but to a creed that seeks to preserve a nation’s meaningful independence and its’ people’s liberties and welfare – National Liberalism. In that spirit he has written a short article about the prospects of National Liberalism (and in particular its’ twin Liberal Nationalism) in Africa.–]

Liberal Nationalism against Left and Right Politics in Africa

Liberal Nationalism in Africa versus Left and Right Politics

[As a prelude for discussing the needs and prospects of Liberal Nationalism in Africa, this personal opinion is trying to define the ideology of Liberal Nationalism in comparison to other forms of nationalism; and its challenges against right and left social and economic politics. Ironically, Nationalism is systematically accused of being leftist and rightist by the both globalist camps at the same time although many experts have found that placing Nationalism on a conventional left-right political spectrum is difficult and wrong.

The opinions stated here are personal and does not represent the NLP; they might be critical and even controversial; but that is why they are liberal.

First, it is important to note that Liberal Nationalism (one variation is also called Civic Nationalism) is a new advanced form of nationalism; while National Liberalism appeared in the West since the 19th century as a variant of liberalism. Liberal Nationalism is about establishing resilient governance based on social and economic justice and solidarity; while National Liberalism believes in a stronger national presence on the international stage, mainly through economic and cultural liberalism.

A constructive form of liberalism first (originating in about 1650–1700) became a powerful force rejecting several practices of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

On the other hand, classical nationalism is a very ancient collective identification of a multitude of individuals within or without ethnic and tribal groups that are working together to preserve and strengthen their various essential interests.

There are a number of different types of Nationalism and types of Liberalism. Many of these forms and practices are unsustainable and aggressive while the principles of both ideologies contain many positive attributes. The most famous African and Asian examples of liberal nationalism so far, are manifested by the South African National Congress Party (ANC) and the Indian National Congress (INC). The closest form of liberalism to Liberal Nationalism is National Liberalism; which is fundamentally different from Social Liberalism (classical liberalism with a social welfare tone).

Other forms of nationalism are: Ethnocentrism; Social Nationalism; Pan-nationalism. All forms of nationalism are anti-colonialism; anti-imperialism; and anti-corporate-globalism. Opposition to Liberal Nationalism comes from Communism; Ultra-nationalism; Socialism; Capitalism; neo-Liberalism; Liberal International; Africa Liberal Network; and religious brotherhoods, in addition to international secret societies.

To promote the principles of Democracy and Liberties together with Nationalism on continental and global levels, international organizations need to be established. These networks shall strengthen Liberal Nationalism in Africa and around the world. Liberal Democracy and Social Democracy are penetrating the world as a result of their institutional organization and support, yet Liberal Nationalism has all the qualities and reasons to succeed all over the world. Such a much-needed federation should be tasked with the following:

Coordinating between Liberal Nationalist groups.

Encouraging solidarity among member groups.

Establishing sharing of information and experiences.

I invite you to read and debate on articles at my Tarig Anter blog; such as:
Why Africa Must Trash Western Liberal Democracy?…..& Their Way of Life Too?
Swindles of Modern Liberal Democracy”Swindles of Modern Liberal Democracy
Three-dimensional Democracy (XYZ Democracy)
Neoliberal Corporations & Sunnite Islamism Attacking Nationalism
The Swadeshi Movement

The current developments in Europe; South America; and the USA – and in different aspects in Africa and Asia – are good signs (on top of the list: debts and social injustices). But these crises call for greater and coordinated actions and expositions.

Liberal Nationalism has two main fields for engagement in Africa; the first is to expose the failures of the conventional democratic system as being hijacked and corrupted by liberal and social democracy for global hegemony. The second goal is to propose and call for different national genuinely democratic governance electoral systems where truly Africans have “As much government as necessary, as little government as possible.”

I assume that it is most important for Liberal Nationalism to make the public very aware of the fundamental differences between the various ideologies and trends of liberalism on social; individual/community; economic; and political domains.

Let me add few words about yet another brilliant spirit in liberal nationalism uncommonly seen and may be ignored in an Indian humble movement called “Swadeshi”:

Let me tell you about the Swadeshi movement:

“Spirit Of Swadeshi; (Source: Mani Bhavan Gandhi)

Swadeshi is that spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of our immediate surroundings to the exclusion of the more remote. Thus, as for religion, in order to satisfy the requirements of the definition, I must restrict myself to my ancestral religion. That is, the use of my immediate religious surrounding. If I find it defective, I should serve it by purging it of its defects.

In the domain of politics, I should make use of the indigenous institutions and serve them by curing them of their proved defects. In that of economics I should use only things that are produced by my immediate neighbors and serve those industries by making them efficient and complete where they might be found wanting. It is suggested that such Swadeshi, if reduced to practice, will lead to the millennium.. . .”

The hostilities towards any form of nationalism, meek or aggressive, were very strongly coming from financiers and bankers in the USA and their communist twin in Moscow, a deceptive polarity aiming at nationalism from both directions. (Social) liberalism (a vacuum cleaner) and communism were and still are the most racist, anti-human rights and totalitarian systems, despite of all the slogans and pretences.

Tarig Mohamed Mohamed-kheir Anter, Khartoum, Sudan]

The source: The National Liberal Party (NLP) (UK) website.


Date: January 7, 2012

Who Really Controls the World?

Who Really Controls the World?

Prof. Dr. Mujahid Kamran wrote a great article on December 14, 2011, on the New Dawn magazine Special Issue #18 stating the following:

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” – Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924)

“So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” – Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister (1804-1881)

The advent of the industrial revolution, the invention of a banking system based on usury, and scientific and technological advancements during the past three centuries have had three major consequences. These have made the incredible concentration of wealth in a few hands possible, have led to the construction of increasingly deadly weapons culminating in weapons of mass destruction, and have made it possible to mould the minds of vast populations by application of scientific techniques through the media and control of the educational system.

The wealthiest families on planet earth call the shots in every major upheaval that they cause. Their sphere of activity extends over the entire globe, and even beyond, their ambition and greed for wealth and power knows no bounds, and for them, most of mankind is garbage – “human garbage.” It is also their target to depopulate the globe and maintain a much lower population compared to what we have now.

It was Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild (1840-1915) who once said: “I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the British Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.” What was true of the British Empire is equally true of the US Empire, controlled remotely by the London based Elite through the Federal Reserve System. Judged by its consequences, the Federal Reserve System is the greatest con job in human history.

It is sad and painful that man’s most beautiful construction, and the source of most power and wealth on earth, viz. scientific knowledge – the most sublime, most powerful and most organised expression of man’s inherent gift of thought, wonder and awe – became a tool for subjugation of humanity, a very dangerous tool in the hands of a tiny group of men. These men “hire” the scientist and take away, as a matter of right, the power the scientist creates through his inventions. This power is then used for their own purposes, at immense human and material cost to mankind. The goal of this handful of men, the members of the wealthiest families on the planet, the Elite, is a New World Order, a One World Government, under their control.

Secrecy and anonymity is integral to the operations of the Elite as is absolute ruthlessness, deep deception and the most sordid spying and blackmail. The Elite pitches nations against each other, and aims at the destruction of religion and other traditional values, creates chaos, deliberately spreads poverty and misery, and then usurps power placing its stooges in place. These families “buy while the blood is still flowing in the streets” (Rothschild dictum). Wars, “revolutions” and assassinations are part of their tactics to destroy traditional civilisation and traditional religions (as in Soviet Russia), amass wealth and power, eliminate opponents, and proceed relentlessly towards their avowed goal, generation after generation. They operate through covert and overt societies and organisations.

Professor Carroll Quigley wrote:

The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands to be able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in private meetings and conferences.… The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralisation of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury to all other economic groups.

Winston Churchill, who was eventually “bored by it all,” wrote around 1920:

From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played a definitely recognisable role in the tragedy of French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century, and now at last, this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

The High Cabal Exposed by JFK

It was in the dark days of World War II that Churchill referred to the existence of a “High Cabal” that had brought about unprecedented bloodshed in human history. Churchill is also said to have remarked about the Elite: “They have transported Lenin in a sealed truck like a plague bacillus from Switzerland into Russia…” (quoted by John Coleman in The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, Global Publications 2006). Who are ‘they’?

Consider the 1961 statement of US President John F. Kennedy (JFK) before media personnel:

The word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, secret oaths and secret proceedings. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy, that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence. It depends on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published, its mistakes are buried, not headlined, and its dissenters are silenced, not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no secret revealed… I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people.”

Secret societies, secret oaths, secret proceedings, infiltration, subversion, intimidation – these are the words used by JFK!

On June 4, 1963, JFK ordered the printing of Treasury dollar bills instead of Federal Reserve notes (Executive Order 11110). He also ordered that once these had been printed, the Federal Reserve notes would be withdrawn, and the Treasury bills put into circulation. A few months later (November 22, 1963) he was killed in broad daylight in front of the whole world – his brains blown out. Upon assumption of power, his successor, President Lyndon Johnson, immediately reversed the order to switch to Treasury bills showing very clearly why JFK was murdered. Another order of JFK, to militarily disengage from the Far East by withdrawing US “advisors” from Vietnam, was also immediately reversed after his death. After the Cuban crisis JFK wanted peaceful non-confrontational coexistence with the Soviet Union and that meant no wars in the world. He knew the next war would be nuclear and there would be no winners.

The defence industry and the banks that make money from war belong to the Elite. The Elite subscribes to a dialectical Hegelian philosophy, as pointed out by Antony Sutton, under which they bring about ‘controlled conflict’. The two world wars were ‘controlled conflicts’! Their arrogance, their ceaseless energy, their focus, their utter disregard for human life, their ability to plan decades in advance, to act on that planning, and their continual success are staggering and faith-shaking.

Statements by men like Disraeli, Wilson, Churchill, JFK and others should not leave any doubt in the mind of the reader about who controls the world. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote in November 1933 to Col. Edward House: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centres has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.” It may be recalled that Andrew Jackson, US President from 1829-1837, was so enraged by the tactics of bankers (Rothschilds) that he said: “You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.”

Interlocking Structure of Elite Control

In his book Big Oil and Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families and Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics and Terror Network, Dean Henderson states: “My queries to bank regulatory agencies regarding stock ownership in the top 25 US bank holding companies were given Freedom of Information Act status, before being denied on ‘national security’ grounds. This is ironic since many of the bank’s stockholders reside in Europe.” This is, on the face of it, quite astonishing but it goes to show the US government works not for the people but for the Elite. It also shows that secrecy is paramount in Elite affairs. No media outlet will raise this issue because the Elite owns the media. Secrecy is essential for Elite control – if the world finds out the truth about the wealth, thought, ideology and activities of the Elite there would be a worldwide revolt against it. Henderson further states:

The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP Amoco and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with other European and old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch. According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stockholders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.

It is well known that in 2009, of the top 100 largest economic entities of the world, 44 were corporations. The wealth of these families, which are among the top 10% shareholders in each of these, is far in excess of national economies. In fact, total global GDP is around 70 trillion dollars. The Rothschild family wealth alone is estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. So is the case with the Rockefellers who were helped and provided money all along by the Rothschilds. The US has an annual GDP in the range of 14-15 trillion dollars. This pales into insignificance before the wealth of these trillionaires. With the US government and most European countries in debt to the Elite, there should be absolutely no doubt as to who owns the world and who controls it. To quote Eustace Mullins from his book The World Order:

The Rothschilds rule the US through their Foundations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Federal Reserve System with no serious challenges to their power. Expensive ‘political campaigns’ are routinely conducted, with carefully screened candidates who are pledged to the program of the World Order. Should they deviate from the program, they would have an ‘accident’, be framed on a sex charge, or indicted in some financial irregularity.

The Elite members operate in absolute unison against public benefit, against a better life for mankind in which the individual is free to develop his or her innate creativity, a life free of war and bloodshed. James Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defence of the US, became aware of Elite intrigue and had, according to Jim Marrs, accumulated 3,000 pages of notes to be used for writing a book. He died in mysterious circumstances and was almost certainly murdered. His notes were taken away and a sanitised version made public after one year! Just before he died, almost fifteen months before the outbreak of the Korean War, he had revealed that American soldiers would die in Korea! Marrs quotes Forrestal: “These men are not incompetent or stupid. Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If they were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favour.” The Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the mother of all these, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, are bodies where decisions about the future of mankind are arrived at. Who set these up and control them? The “international bankers” of course.

In his book The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, Col. Fletcher Prouty, who was the briefing officer to the President of the US from 1955-1963, writes about “an inner sanctum of a new religious order.” By the phrase Secret Team he means a group of “security-cleared individuals in and out of government who receive secret intelligence data gathered by the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) and who react to those data.” He states: “The power of the Team derives from its vast intra-governmental undercover infrastructure and its direct relationship with great private industries, mutual funds and investment houses, universities, and the news media, including foreign and domestic publishing houses.” He further adds: “All true members of the Team remain in the power centre whether in office with the incumbent administration or out of office with the hard-core set. They simply rotate to and from official jobs and the business world or the pleasant haven of academe.”

Training the Young for Elite Membership

It is very remarkable as to how ‘they’ are able to exercise control and how ‘they’ always find people to carry out the job, and how is it ‘they’ always make the ‘right’ decision at the right time? This can only be possible if there exists a hidden program of inducting and training cadres mentally, ideologically, philosophically, psychologically and ability-wise, over prolonged periods of time and planting them in the centres of power of countries like the US, UK, etc. This training would begin at a young age in general. There must also be a method of continual appraisal, by small groups of very highly skilled men, of developing situations with ‘their’ men who are planted throughout the major power centres of the world so that immediate ‘remedial’ action, action that always favours Elite interests, can be taken. How does that happen?

It is in finding answers to these questions that the role of secret societies and their control of universities, particularly in the US, assumes deeper importance. The work done by men like Antony Sutton, John Coleman, Eustace Mullins and others is ground breaking. Mankind owes a debt to such scholars who suffer for truth but do not give in. Whenever you trace the money source of important initiatives designed to bring about major wars, lay down policies for the future, enhance control of the Elite over mankind, etc., you will invariably find them linked to the so called banking families and their stooges operating out of Foundations.

In April 2008 I was among approximately 200 Vice Chancellors, Rectors and Presidents of universities from Asia, Africa, Europe and the US at a two day Higher Education Summit for Global Development, held at the US State Department in Washington DC. The Summit was addressed by five US Secretaries, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The real emphasis throughout the Summit was only on one thing – that universities in developing countries operate in partnership with foundations so that global problems could be solved! These are private foundations and the only way to understand this emphasis is to realise the US government is owned by those who own these foundations. As an aside the inaugural address was delivered by the war criminal responsible for millions of deaths in Rwanda, trained in US military institutions, and awarded a doctorate – Dr. Paul Kagame! The very first presentation was made by the CEO of the Agha Khan Foundation!

In a fascinating study of the Yale secret society Skull and Bones, Antony Sutton uncovered numerous aspects of profound importance about this one society. In his book America’s Secret Establishment – An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones, Sutton points out there is a set of “Old Line American Families and New Wealth” that dominates The Order (of Skull & Bones) – the Whitney family, the Stimson family, the Bundy family, the Rockefeller family, the Harriman family, the Taft family, the Bush family, and so on. He also points out that there is a British connection:

The links between the Order and Britain go through Lazard Freres and the private merchant bankers. Notably the British establishment also founded a University – Oxford University, and especially All Souls College at Oxford. The British element is called ‘The Group’. The Group links to the Jewish equivalent through the Rothschilds in Britain (Lord Rothschild was an original member of Rhodes’ ‘inner circle’). The Order in the US links to the Guggenheim, Schiff and Warburg families… There is an Illuminati connection.

Every year 15 young men, and very recently women, have been inducted into The Order from Yale students since 1832. Who selects them? A study of the career trajectories of many of those ‘chosen’ shows how they rise to prominence in American life and how their peers ensure these men penetrate the very fabric of important US institutions. They are always there in key positions during war and peace, manipulating and watching ceaselessly.

The influence of the Elite families on the thought processes of nations is carried out through academic institutions and organisations, as well as the media. Sutton writes:

Among academic associations the American Historical Association, the American Economic Association, the American Chemical Society, and the American Psychological Association were all started by members of The Order or persons close to The Order. These are key associations for the conditioning of society. The phenomenon of The Order as the FIRST on the scene is found especially among Foundations, although it appears that The Order keeps a continuing presence among Foundation Trustees… The FIRST Chairman of an influential but almost unknown organisation established in 1910 was also a member of The Order. In 1920 Theodore Marburg founded the American Society for the Judicial Settlement of Disputes, but Marburg was only President. The FIRST Chairman was member William Howard Taft. The Society was the forerunner of the League to Enforce Peace, which developed into the League of Nations concept and ultimately the United Nations.

The United Nations is an instrument of the Elite designed to facilitate the setting up of One World Government under Elite control. The UN building stands on Rockefeller property.

Selecting Future Prime Ministers to Serve the New World Order

In his article, ‘Oxford University – The Illuminati Breeding Ground’, David Icke recounts an incident that demonstrates how these secret societies and groups, working for the Elite, select, train and plan to install their men in key positions. In 1940 a young man addressed a “study group” of the Labor Party in a room at University College Oxford. He stressed that he belonged to a secret group without a name which planned a “Marxist takeover” of Britain, Rhodesia and South Africa by infiltrating the British Parliament and Civil Services. Since the British do not like extremists they dismiss their critics as ‘right-wingers’ while themselves posing as ‘moderates’ (this seems like the anti-Semitism charge by ADL, etc. whenever Israel is criticised). The young man stated that he headed the political wing of that secret group and he expected to be made Prime Minister of Britain some day! The young man was Harold Wilson who became Prime Minister of Britain (1964-70, 1974-76)!

All young men studying at Ivy League universities, and at others, must bear in mind they are being continually scrutinised by some of their Professors with the intention of selecting from amongst them, those who will serve the Elite, and become part of a global network of interlocked covert and overt societies and organisations, working for the New World Order. Some of those already selected will be present among them, mingling with them and yet, in their heart, separated from them by a sense of belonging to a brotherhood with a mission that has been going on for a long time. These young men also know they will be rewarded by advancement in career and also that if they falter they could be killed!

Utter secrecy and absolute loyalty is essential to the continued success of this program. This is enforced through fear of murder or bankruptcy and through a cult which probably takes us back to the times of the pyramids and before. Philosophically ‘they’ believe in Hegelian dialectics through which they justify bringing about horrible wars – euphemistically called ‘controlled conflict’. Their political ideology is ‘collectivism’ whereby mankind has to be ‘managed’ by a group of men, ‘them’, organised for the purpose – a hidden ‘dominant minority’. ‘They’ believe that they know better than ordinary mortals. The Illuminati, the Freemasons, members of other known and unknown secret societies, all mesh together under the wealthiest cabal in human history to take a mesmerised, dormant and battered mankind from one abyss to the next. Former MI6 agent John Coleman refers to a “Committee of 300” that controls and guides this vast subterranean human machinery.

In his book Memoirs, published in 2002, David Rockefeller, Sr. stated that his family had been attacked by “ideological extremists” for “more than a century… Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterising my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” That’s it!

Prof. Dr. MUJAHID KAMRAN is Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan, and his book The Grand Deception – Corporate America and Perpetual War has just been published (April 2011) by Sang e Meel Publications, Lahore, Pakistan, and is available from www.amazon.co.uk. Prof. Kamran’s website is www.mujahidkamran.com.

This article appeared in New Dawn Special Issue 18.

© Copyright New Dawn Magazine, http://www.newdawnmagazine.com. Permission granted to freely distribute this article for non-commercial purposes if unedited and copied in full, including this notice.

© Copyright New Dawn Magazine, http://www.newdawnmagazine.com. Permission to re-send, post and place on web sites for non-commercial purposes, and if shown only in its entirety with no changes or additions.

Liberal Nationalism: Healthy Balance between Nationalism and Liberalism

I have just came across two very good articles about Liberal Nationalism. They came from two different worlds but they share the same human values. One is from India and the other is from Britain. They both explain why Liberal Nationalism is the necessary healthy balance between Nationalism and Liberalism. Let me start with the article posted by IndianLiberals.org a year ago:

Liberal nationalism is non-xenophobic nationalism and is inclusive not exclusive, extrovert not introvert, progressive not regressive, and fluid not stagnant

Liberal Nationalism

[I have extracted the following comment from one of my recent blog post discussion. A commentator took exception to the fact that I in some way appealed to certain communal sentiments and I am partly to take blame for it. For the article was addressed to the Hindus specifically and it is very easy to look at it from a “communal” angle. I have pasted a part of the comment below:

In your article I perceived a tone of ‘communal’ competition. Now, don’t get shocked by my use of ‘communal’ here! According to me, appealing to the sentiment of nationalism is exactly the same as appealing to the sentiment of religiosity or regional pride (“sons of the soil”-argument). [emphasis mine]

At the outset, I must clarify that I wasn’t appealing to anyone’s “communal” sentiment. But that’s not what this post is about. What stuck with me most was the commentator’s likening of nationalism with religiosity and regional pride. Again, I don’t blame the commentator for that. After all, that’s what nationalism has been reduced to these days!

I spent a good part of last week thinking about, and researching, the concept of nationalism. And after going through scores of references, I’ve come to realise that nationalism means many things. But since this is not an academic discussion on the meanings of nationalism, I will stick to *what I think* is the common man’s understanding of nationalism i.e. devotion and loyalty to one’s own nation!

As a liberal idealist, I dream of a world sans national borders – a world where every place belongs to everyone and where no one is an alien and no one the “son of the soil”! And I positively despise people who claim to love only a tiny piece of land on this great beautiful planet. My dislike of these people is not because they love their nation but because they claim to love their nation more than other nations. I fail to see the rationale behind it!

But at the same time, I love the place where I was born and feel a sense of attachment to it no matter where I live. Without doubt, I remain devoted to India and I wish to see India prosper and take its rightful place in the world. That, for me, is nationalism! And I am sure that many people across the world feel about their respective nations exactly the way I do about India.

Clearly, there’s a conflict between liberalism and nationalism, you would think. And sure enough, liberals and nationalists identify themselves in different groups. Having spent some time understanding these two concepts, however, I think that it need not necessarily be the case. The problem is not in the conceptualisation of liberalism and nationalism but in the interpretation of the two.

Nationalism in India

India has had many different interpretations of nationalism over the many years of our history. Prominent amongst them are Hindu nationalism, Muslim nationalism, socialist nationalism, and in the recent days, territorial nationalism.

Hindu nationalism is a form of cultural nationalism. It is a form of nationalism in which a nation is defined by a “shared culture, history and ancestry”. It implies that anyone who doesn’t share a certain culture, history or ancestry isn’t qualified to be a national of that country.

Muslims nationalism, as the name suggests, is founded upon the tenets of Islam. This religious nationalism gave way to the expression of Muslim separatism and statehood and continues to do so to a large extent in the troubled Kashmir region. Obviously, anyone who doesn’t belong to the religion of the state is at best treated as a secondary citizen of that country. Most of the Muslim nations are a testament to that.

Socialist nationalism, on the other hand, was made popular by the Nehru-Gandhi family. Although this form of nationalism has largely rejected the cultural and religious nationalism, it is still an extremely authoritarian form of nationalism. The command & control structure of the Indian National Congress should work as a very good example here. It is limited in its scope in that it is closely tied to left-wing politics.

And finally, the recent phenomenon is territorial nationalism. It idealises citizenship and assumes that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption. The growing Indian diaspora across the world reflects this form of nationalism exceedingly well. You would see an increase in this form of nationalistic sentiments even within India – Maharashtra for Marathis, for instance!

There are a few other forms of nationalism prevalent in India such as ethnic nationalism (Dravidian parties in the South) worth a mention. The problem with most of these forms of nationalism is that they are equally xenophobic, supremacist and diversity-intolerant. Unfortunately, prevalence of these interpretations, or of their combination, have necessitated most Indians to align their sense of patriotism with one or the other. So if you love your India, you will have to identify yourself as either a Hindu nationalist or a territorial nationalist. Unfortunately, a liberal is almost always branded anti-India, anti-national!

I think it need not be that way. I was certain that there had to be a reconciliation or my liberal values and my love for the nation. And that reconciliation is liberal nationalism!

Liberal nationalism

Liberal nationalism is essentially a form of non-xenophobic nationalism compatible with the liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality and individual rights. It lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism but as a form of nationalism, it is contrasted with all the above forms I discussed.

Liberal nationalism views a nation as an assembly of free individuals who choose to live together. These people are not bound by culture, history, ancestry or territory but by, as Ernest Renan put it, “by their desire to live together… having done great things together and wishing to do more!” It is, according to him, a “daily plebiscite”, implying that people are free to be part of this nation and free to leave it.

Liberal nationalism is the only form of nationalism that respects an individual on his/her merits; not on that individual’s race, religion, ancestry or place of birth. It is the only form of nationalism that is inclusive instead of exclusive, extrovert instead of introvert, progressive instead of regressive, and fluid instead of stagnant.

India, with it’s fascinating diversity, is best poised to be a liberal nation. Unfortunately, this same diversity is creating political rifts along religious, regional and ethnic lines and fostering undesirable chauvinistic nationalist sentiments. And such nationalistic sentiments could only take us down the road of destruction.

Hence my appeal to the liberals of India: before you surrender the concept of nationalism to the likes of Sangh parivar or the MNS or DMK or the Congress, ask yourselves what kind of an India you would want to build – an India of liberals or an India of bigots?]

More From Indian Liberals (IndianLiberals.org is an independent blog and is not associated with any formal or informal organisation.)

The second article about Liberal Nationalism is from the National Liberal Party (NLP) of Britain:

Head & Heart

[By the 20th Century Liberalism was seen as antagonistic to Nationalism. In crude terms Liberals placed the rights of individuals above all whilst Nationalists believed the group was everything. Thus Liberals and Nationalists were often locked in political conflict over the nature and function of the state. It wasn’t always so.

In the 19th century many (political) Liberals believed that the only way to create (in opposition to the multi-national monarchies/aristocratic rulers) and maintain (in a stable environment) individual freedom was within a community of equals. The nation (a people sharing a language, culture and history) was such a community. Nationalism was the pursuit of turning a ‘nation’ into a state. Thus such Liberals adopted nationalism as part of their creed and became known as National Liberals. Indeed many saw Nationalism as an aspect of Liberalism.

The end of history?

The success of people to craft out nations throughout Europe and largely create representative democracies within them boded well for the future. A commentator writing just before the Second World War (and fearful of the future) bemoaned the loss of an earlier age where Liberalism and Nationalism were working together towards a “completer humanity”. Further, it was felt “History…. was reaching, its final phrase, and increasing development of the rights of the individual and of democracy within Nation-States was all that the future would have to chronicle. The battle for liberty had been won at last; all the 20th century would need to do would be to garner the harvest.” Of course it never worked out that way.

The plethora of ‘nation-states’ after the First World War should have paved the way for peace rather than conflict but, since many of the states were bureaucratic constructs and the democracy forcibly implanted, Europe descended into war as Authoritarian and Totalitarian forces took over. Thus Nationalism and Liberalism became in conflict as adherents of the former increasingly rejected the latter as an obstacle to the ‘greater unity of the people’ whilst they in turn saw them as a threat to the ‘people’s freedom of choice.’ The ‘excesses’ of so-called Nationalists ultimately led to the pendulum swinging towards Liberalism and a suspicion of nation-states in general (at least in Europe). What then is the natural order of their relationship?

The Heart

Both philosophies appeal to different aspects of Man. Nationalism is an emotion, a belief in a group loyalty that may require a sacrifice for the greater whole. In its basic sense it is the reason why we pay taxes the benefits of which we may not receive in return. Some theorists would say this is a ‘social contract’ i.e. we pay for peace of mind. We sacrifice our freedom of action towards laws and enforcement because it suits us e.g. a protection against the strong or the criminal. A Nationalist would say that it is our duty to make that sacrifice, being also a product of past and future generations i.e. we owe it to our families not just as a selfish choice. A National Liberal would say that an individuals family, community and nation require a proportionate form of sacrifice i.e. that which doesn’t also take away his individuality or liberty. In all senses the Nation represents Man’s heart. It is an emotional feeling that justifies sacrifice and duty. Mazzini says that it has a call upon the duties of man.

The Head

Liberalism on the other hand appeals to the intellect. We are born as individuals and we seek a way of life that allows us to enjoy its’ fruits. How we organise ourselves, how we interact with others is dictated by our mind e.g. we should be able to choose our form of governance whilst still maintaining at ‘arms-length’ the designs of the state. This freedom to choose is essential as is the freedom to limit the control that a state exercises upon our lives. Liberalism, or more properly Liberty, is represented by our head for we choose to be free. A National Liberal would say that liberty (from an omnipotent state) is crucial to Man’s well-being. Mazzini says that it is one of the rights of man.

The early revolts of the 19th century illustrate the differences of Man’s Dual nature (Heard or Heart). Such revolts were either Liberal or Nationalist in their nature (unlike the more National-Liberal revolts in 1848). Although mainly inspired by political liberalism (the head) the only successful revolt (in Portugal) was that inspired by nationalist impulses (the heart). Reaction in Europe was too powerful to be overthrown so whilst the masses might shout for liberty they would not fight (and inevitably die) for it. Where inspired by the heart i.e. nationalism they will do so even when the cause seems, in practical terms, lost.

A necessary balance of ‘Head & Heart’

Thus a vital Nationalism and Liberalism within society can be seen as a perquisite for a healthy people as a vital head and heart is for a healthy body. A National Liberal thus seeks to harness and maintain a balance between the needs of the nation and the individual as a doctor would between the needs of head and heart. One cannot be complete without the other.]

The NLP represents a third way. This is a reflection of being born out of the Third Way ‘Think Tank’ and our belief that they are the best alternative to the two main parties of left (Labour) and right (Conservative). They also believe that the ideology of National Liberalism to be a more viable alternative to Socialism/Marxism and Capitalism. At the head of the party is a National Executive and a National Secretary (Glen Maney). More articles are at the National Liberal Party website:

The new democracy: Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

The Independent published on 18 November 2011 this revealing article written by Stephen Foley.

What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

Goldman Sachs Men in the EU

While ordinary people fret about austerity and jobs, the eurozone’s corridors of power have been undergoing a remarkable transformation

The ascension of Mario Monti to the Italian prime ministership is remarkable for more reasons than it is possible to count. By replacing the scandal-surfing Silvio Berlusconi, Italy has dislodged the undislodgeable. By imposing rule by unelected technocrats, it has suspended the normal rules of democracy, and maybe democracy itself. And by putting a senior adviser at Goldman Sachs in charge of a Western nation, it has taken to new heights the political power of an investment bank that you might have thought was prohibitively politically toxic.

This is the most remarkable thing of all: a giant leap forward for, or perhaps even the successful culmination of, the Goldman Sachs Project.

It is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial player in the sovereign debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank’s alumni hold sway in the corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughout the financial crisis. Until Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund’s European division was also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for personal reasons.

Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname as “the Vampire Squid”, and now that its tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone, sceptical voices are raising questions over its influence. The political decisions taken in the coming weeks will determine if the eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman’s interests are intricately tied up with the answer to that question.

Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers, argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European politicians aren’t “bought and paid for” by corporations, as in the US, he says. “Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions.”

This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close. Every business wants to advance its interests with the regulators that can stymie them and the politicians who can give them a tax break, but this is no mere lobbying effort. Goldman is there to provide advice for governments and to provide financing, to send its people into public service and to dangle lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government. The Project is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.

Mr Monti is one of Italy’s most eminent economists, and he spent most of his career in academia and thinktankery, but it was when Mr Berlusconi appointed him to the European Commission in 1995 that Goldman Sachs started to get interested in him. First as commissioner for the internal market, and then especially as commissioner for competition, he has made decisions that could make or break the takeover and merger deals that Goldman’s bankers were working on or providing the funding for. Mr Monti also later chaired the Italian Treasury’s committee on the banking and financial system, which set the country’s financial policies.

With these connections, it was natural for Goldman to invite him to join its board of international advisers. The bank’s two dozen-strong international advisers act as informal lobbyists for its interests with the politicians that regulate its work. Other advisers include Otmar Issing who, as a board member of the German Bundesbank and then the European Central Bank, was one of the architects of the euro.

Perhaps the most prominent ex-politician inside the bank is Peter Sutherland, Attorney General of Ireland in the 1980s and another former EU Competition Commissioner. He is now non-executive chairman of Goldman’s UK-based broker-dealer arm, Goldman Sachs International, and until its collapse and nationalisation he was also a non-executive director of Royal Bank of Scotland. He has been a prominent voice within Ireland on its bailout by the EU, arguing that the terms of emergency loans should be eased, so as not to exacerbate the country’s financial woes. The EU agreed to cut Ireland’s interest rate this summer.

Picking up well-connected policymakers on their way out of government is only one half of the Project, sending Goldman alumni into government is the other half. Like Mr Monti, Mario Draghi, who took over as President of the ECB on 1 November, has been in and out of government and in and out of Goldman. He was a member of the World Bank and managing director of the Italian Treasury before spending three years as managing director of Goldman Sachs International between 2002 and 2005 – only to return to government as president of the Italian central bank.

Mr Draghi has been dogged by controversy over the accounting tricks conducted by Italy and other nations on the eurozone periphery as they tried to squeeze into the single currency a decade ago. By using complex derivatives, Italy and Greece were able to slim down the apparent size of their government debt, which euro rules mandated shouldn’t be above 60 per cent of the size of the economy. And the brains behind several of those derivatives were the men and women of Goldman Sachs.

The bank’s traders created a number of financial deals that allowed Greece to raise money to cut its budget deficit immediately, in return for repayments over time. In one deal, Goldman channelled $1bn of funding to the Greek government in 2002 in a transaction called a cross-currency swap. On the other side of the deal, working in the National Bank of Greece, was Petros Christodoulou, who had begun his career at Goldman, and who has been promoted now to head the office managing government Greek debt. Lucas Papademos, now installed as Prime Minister in Greece’s unity government, was a technocrat running the Central Bank of Greece at the time.

Goldman says that the debt reduction achieved by the swaps was negligible in relation to euro rules, but it expressed some regrets over the deals. Gerald Corrigan, a Goldman partner who came to the bank after running the New York branch of the US Federal Reserve, told a UK parliamentary hearing last year: “It is clear with hindsight that the standards of transparency could have been and probably should have been higher.”

When the issue was raised at confirmation hearings in the European Parliament for his job at the ECB, Mr Draghi says he wasn’t involved in the swaps deals either at the Treasury or at Goldman.

It has proved impossible to hold the line on Greece, which under the latest EU proposals is effectively going to default on its debt by asking creditors to take a “voluntary” haircut of 50 per cent on its bonds, but the current consensus in the eurozone is that the creditors of bigger nations like Italy and Spain must be paid in full. These creditors, of course, are the continent’s big banks, and it is their health that is the primary concern of policymakers. The combination of austerity measures imposed by the new technocratic governments in Athens and Rome and the leaders of other eurozone countries, such as Ireland, and rescue funds from the IMF and the largely German-backed European Financial Stability Facility, can all be traced to this consensus.

“My former colleagues at the IMF are running around trying to justify bailouts of €1.5trn-€4trn, but what does that mean?” says Simon Johnson. “It means bailing out the creditors 100 per cent. It is another bank bailout, like in 2008: The mechanism is different, in that this is happening at the sovereign level not the bank level, but the rationale is the same.”

So certain is the financial elite that the banks will be bailed out, that some are placing bet-the-company wagers on just such an outcome. Jon Corzine, a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, returned to Wall Street last year after almost a decade in politics and took control of a historic firm called MF Global. He placed a $6bn bet with the firm’s money that Italian government bonds will not default.

When the bet was revealed last month, clients and trading partners decided it was too risky to do business with MF Global and the firm collapsed within days. It was one of the ten biggest bankruptcies in US history.

The grave danger is that, if Italy stops paying its debts, creditor banks could be made insolvent.  Goldman Sachs, which has written over $2trn of insurance, including an undisclosed amount on eurozone countries’ debt, would not escape unharmed, especially if some of the $2trn of insurance it has purchased on that insurance turns out to be with a bank that has gone under. No bank – and especially not the Vampire Squid – can easily untangle its tentacles from the tentacles of its peers. This is the rationale for the bailouts and the austerity, the reason we are getting more Goldman, not less. The alternative is a second financial crisis, a second economic collapse.

Shared illusions, perhaps? Who would dare test it?