ZIO-Britain hasn't been sovereign since the Second World
War since when we've been a satellite of the United States. The right wing media
and the Tory Eurosceptics rage against the threat to British sovereignty from
the European Union and certainly the EU has many faults but they are incapable
of recognizing that the foreign power that actually controls Britain is the
ZIOCONNED USA and its most infamous White House Murder INC,...
The potential war aims of any of Britain’s early 20th century rivals are easy enough to imagine or, for that matter, to look up. First, the British Empire would have been dismantled, such portions of it as the conquering nation wanted would have been seized, other parts would have been allowed self-government under the overall control of the new imperial power, and a few token colonies would be left under British control where that suited the conqueror’s interests. Second, the British government would become a permanent and subordinate ally of the new imperial power. Third, Britain’s military would have been reduced to a fraction of its previous size, and the British government would be obligated to provide troops and ships to support the new imperial power when the latter decided on a military adventure. Fourth, Britain would be expected to pay a large sum of money as reparations for the costs of the war. Finally, to guarantee all these things, the British government would have been forced to accept an occupying force in Britain, and permanent military bases would be signed over to the new imperial power in Britain and its remaining colonies. That, by and large, is what happened to defeated nations in the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries...
Now compare that list to the relations between Great Britain and the United States from 1945 to the present. That’s the thing that can’t be mentioned to this day in polite company: the British empire ended in the early 1940s when the United States conquered and occupied Britain. It was a bloodless conquest, like the German conquest of Denmark, and since the alternative was submitting to Nazi Germany, the British by and large made the best of it. Still, none of Queen Victoria’s prime ministers would have tolerated for a moment the thought of foreign troops being garrisoned on British soil, which is where thousands of US military personnel are garrisoned now...
The potential war aims of any of Britain’s early 20th century rivals are easy enough to imagine or, for that matter, to look up. First, the British Empire would have been dismantled, such portions of it as the conquering nation wanted would have been seized, other parts would have been allowed self-government under the overall control of the new imperial power, and a few token colonies would be left under British control where that suited the conqueror’s interests. Second, the British government would become a permanent and subordinate ally of the new imperial power. Third, Britain’s military would have been reduced to a fraction of its previous size, and the British government would be obligated to provide troops and ships to support the new imperial power when the latter decided on a military adventure. Fourth, Britain would be expected to pay a large sum of money as reparations for the costs of the war. Finally, to guarantee all these things, the British government would have been forced to accept an occupying force in Britain, and permanent military bases would be signed over to the new imperial power in Britain and its remaining colonies. That, by and large, is what happened to defeated nations in the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries...
Now compare that list to the relations between Great Britain and the United States from 1945 to the present. That’s the thing that can’t be mentioned to this day in polite company: the British empire ended in the early 1940s when the United States conquered and occupied Britain. It was a bloodless conquest, like the German conquest of Denmark, and since the alternative was submitting to Nazi Germany, the British by and large made the best of it. Still, none of Queen Victoria’s prime ministers would have tolerated for a moment the thought of foreign troops being garrisoned on British soil, which is where thousands of US military personnel are garrisoned now...
That is a very interesting point of view which would
explain a lot of things, such as the gradual "Americanization" of the labor
relationships in Britain.
Still, you are probably aware that a lot of people see it the other way around. You will find a lot of people in Russia who believe that the USA is still controlled from London, in particular the City and the entire international banking network.
And then, there are those who see what they could call the transnational Anglosphere, basically the ECHELON countries, the signatories of the UKUSA/AUSCANNZUKUS Security Agreement: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Add to that the quasi-colonial status of the USA as a vassal of Israel via the Zionist Lobby and the picture gets really complex.
My personal feeling is that all of the above theories are true and that what is truly ruling the planet is a combination of all of the above...
Still, you are probably aware that a lot of people see it the other way around. You will find a lot of people in Russia who believe that the USA is still controlled from London, in particular the City and the entire international banking network.
And then, there are those who see what they could call the transnational Anglosphere, basically the ECHELON countries, the signatories of the UKUSA/AUSCANNZUKUS Security Agreement: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Add to that the quasi-colonial status of the USA as a vassal of Israel via the Zionist Lobby and the picture gets really complex.
My personal feeling is that all of the above theories are true and that what is truly ruling the planet is a combination of all of the above...
A combination of all three... Yes. The world is a complex
place...
As far as London is concerned the old City was a very different place from the cowboy casino capitalism that operates there now. Until the mid Eighties the City of London was ruled by the old British establishment families and to make a successful career in London finance you either had to know the right people or bring money to the bank with you when you joined. The culture was arrive late, leave early and have long lunches. It was a club based on trust and despite its faults it was more or less functional...
In the mid Eighties the Thatcher government deregulated the City and ended what they saw as restrictive practices. These reforms were labeled Big Bang. Once the City opened up the Wall Street boys basically bought up the place and took it over. The culture changed completely and a hyper aggressive market fundamentalism took over. The deregulation made it possible to take insane risks with other people's money and the level of fraud and scandals shot up...
There is plenty of evidence that the City is worse regulated and more corrupt than Wall Street. The maverick financier Max Keiser recently interviewed a former Scotland Yard detective on his show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iswT3PfMec&feature=player_embedded
As far as London is concerned the old City was a very different place from the cowboy casino capitalism that operates there now. Until the mid Eighties the City of London was ruled by the old British establishment families and to make a successful career in London finance you either had to know the right people or bring money to the bank with you when you joined. The culture was arrive late, leave early and have long lunches. It was a club based on trust and despite its faults it was more or less functional...
In the mid Eighties the Thatcher government deregulated the City and ended what they saw as restrictive practices. These reforms were labeled Big Bang. Once the City opened up the Wall Street boys basically bought up the place and took it over. The culture changed completely and a hyper aggressive market fundamentalism took over. The deregulation made it possible to take insane risks with other people's money and the level of fraud and scandals shot up...
There is plenty of evidence that the City is worse regulated and more corrupt than Wall Street. The maverick financier Max Keiser recently interviewed a former Scotland Yard detective on his show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iswT3PfMec&feature=player_embedded
He confirms that London is the fraud capital of the world and that the government has been knowingly conniving at it for years. The British establishment has been quite cynically protecting the City fathers and weakening the regulator in order to attract criminal money as a business decision. UK plc home of innovative financial entrepreneurs and light touch regulation.
Wall Street used London as a means of circumventing US regulation. One of the reasons Clinton repealed Glass Steagal was because the Wall Street boys were dodging regulation via their London offices.
As for Israel I believe before 1967 the US Israel lobby was nothing like as powerful as it is now and the US was not Israel's prime ally. After 1967 the US saw Israel as a Cold War asset in the Middle East which could be used to intimidate the Arabs but after the Cold War Israel ceased to be an asset in my opinion and has become a strategic liability for the US. It would be easier for Uncle Sam to manage the princes and dictators of the Middle East if US support for Israel didn't lead to massive anti American feeling among the Arab public. The Lobby has grown in power to the point where the tail is wagging the dog. Walt and Mearsheimer demonstrate this quite powerfully.
The prime concern of the plutocracy that control the Anglosphere is making money not ethnicity or religion or Eretz Israel. However I do believe that certain Mafiosi and oligarchs who happen to be Jewish such as those who nearly destroyed Russia in the 1990s support Israel because it offers a refuge to which they can emigrate should they get in trouble. The ideology of Israel as a Jewish state means any Jew anywhere in the world can migrate to Israel and make aliyah as of right. This is rationalized as offering Jews protection from the threat of another Holocaust but it also potentially serves to protect criminals from retribution as well as protecting those facing unjust persecution.
The scales fell from my eyes about Israel when they buried the British crook Robert Maxwell on the Mount of Olives despite the fact that he'd stolen from the pension fund of his employees. Apparently he had put his financial and intelligence resources in Israel's service throughout his career and they stood by him as one of their own...
No comments:
Post a Comment