essays on Crime (2): Private Power

Adam Smith, that political thinker who was in favour of the free market, so we are told, berated “merchants and manufacturers”, who went on to use the state for their own interests, so Smith said.  In chapter IV in the Wealth of Nations, he writes:

 The capricious ambition of kings and ministers has not, during the present and the preceding century, been fatal to the repose of Europe, than the impertinent jealousy of merchants and manufacturers. The violence and injustice of the rulers of humankind is an ancient evil, for which, I am afraid, the nature of human affairs can scarce admit of a remedy. Nevertheless, the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be the rulers of humankind, though it cannot perhaps be corrected, may very easily be prevented from disturbing the tranquillity of anybody but themselves.

Actually, Smith was never in favour of the free market, which we are presented with.  These “merchants and manufacturers” in today’s world would not be merchants and manufacturers but transnational corporations and concentrated private power. The sorts of people who idolise Smith today evidently never read him. If they did, they would know that if he were alive today he would be regarded as a dangerous radical.  He would, no doubt, be spewing blood at the emergence of the free market.

Deregulation, lower taxation (for the rich) and privatisation was, in a nutshell, Thatcherism. In Naomi Klein’s book about free market fundamentalism, the Shock Doctrine, she presents a very ugly picture of countries adopting this fascist framework.  These include Chile, Iraq, Argentina, South Africa, Russia, Poland, South Korea, even the United States.  This model was adopted in Chile under Augusto Pinochet.  He was a fascist, openly so, who overthrew the Marxist democrat, Salvador Allende, in a military coup, aided and abetted by the U.S.  “Make the economy scream”, Nixon said of Chile.  This “economic miracle” people speak of in referring to Chile is a myth of sorts.  American journalist Greg Palast writes:

 In 1973, the year General Pinochet brutally seized the government, Chile's unemployment rate was 4.3%. In 1983, after ten years of free-market modernization, unemployment reached 22%. Real wages declined by 40% under military rule.

In 1970, 20% of Chile's population lived in poverty. By 1990, the year "President" Pinochet left office, the number of destitute had doubled to 40%. Quite a miracle.

Pinochet did not destroy Chile's economy all alone. It took nine years of hard work by the most brilliant minds in world academia, a gaggle of Milton Friedman's trainees, the Chicago Boys. Under the spell of their theories, the General abolished the minimum wage, outlawed trade union bargaining rights, privatized the pension system, abolished all taxes on wealth and on business profits, slashed public employment, privatized 212 state industries and 66 banks and ran a fiscal surplus.

Freed of the dead hand of bureaucracy, taxes and union rules, the country took a giant leap forward ... into bankruptcy and depression. After nine years of economics Chicago style, Chile's industry keeled over and died. In 1982 and 1983, GDP dropped 19%. The free-market experiment was kaput, the test tubes shattered. Blood and glass littered the laboratory floor. Yet, with remarkable chutzpah, the mad scientists of Chicago declared success. In the US, President Ronald Reagan's State Department issued a report concluding, "Chile is a casebook study in sound economic management." Milton Friedman himself coined the phrase, "The Miracle of Chile." Friedman's sidekick, economist Art Laffer, preened that Pinochet's Chile was, "a showcase of what supply-side economics can do."

According to Naomi Klein “In 1974, inflation reached 375 percent-the highest rate in the world and almost twice the top level under Allende.”  It was only in 1988, fifteen years after Pinochet seized power that the economy stabilised.  So real economic growth was not seen until Pinochet had been President for well over ten years.  It was the “Chicago boys”, at the University of Chicago, where Milton Friedman oversaw much of the bloodshed in Chile.  Later, Thatcher would refer to Friedman as a “freedom fighter”.  A “freedom fighter” for private, tyrannical power perhaps.

 The fascist economic model Chile adopted laid the groundwork for others to follow. In the 1980s, Russia followed the model with economic advisors, such as Jeffrey Sachs.  Janine R. Wedel of Nation writes:

 Through the late summer and fall of 1991, as the Soviet state fell apart, Harvard Professor Jeffrey Sachs and other Western economists participated in meetings at a dacha outside Moscow where young, pro-Yeltsin reformers planned Russia’s economic and political future. Sachs teamed up with Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin’s first architect of economic reform, to promote a plan of “shock therapy” to swiftly eliminate most of the price controls and subsidies that had underpinned life for Soviet citizens for decades. Shock therapy produced more shock–not least, hyperinflation that hit 2,500 percent–than therapy. One result was the evaporation of much potential investment capital: the substantial savings of Russians.

 In the 1990s South Africa, under the tutelage of Nelson Mandela, Thatcherism and neoliberal thuggery was their economic model.  Mandela’s promise of nationalisation, turned into privatisation. Mandela’s successor said of himself, “Just call me a Thatcherite”.  In Iraq, after the 2003 invasion, the country was overtaken by large U.S corporations, thus resulting in economic strangulation for the natives amidst the tremendous carnage and shock, Klein speaks of. 

This is free market fanaticism to put it mildly.  These corporate elites have this totalitarian monopoly upon which entire societies work under a certain framework.  These Company Executive Officials (CEOs) have only two choices for their business model: to maximise their profits or leave the company altogether.  To maximise their profits they do various reprehensible things.  For example, they are quite content to employ sweatshop labour and pay their workers an absolute pittance; the working conditions themselves are so despicable that not even a Milton Friedman could even justify them. Another example of state protection roughly translated into capitalism.  All these major companies are able, through criminal state law, in repugnant free market societies, to avoid paying vast amounts of taxes; many of these private tyrannies pay less than 1 percent tax.

When the British government wish to implement policies concerning these colossal companies, they must regulate themselves.  Self-regulation is an interesting phrase but is often unscrutinised.  The government can make no decisions concerning these powerful tyrannies, thus asking their permission before implementing policies, which concern them.  This ought to surprise no one because such practices go on for such a sustained period.  This goes on while economic warfare is waged on everybody else.

Banking institutions are notoriously the worst offenders. These banks are nothing more than rackets and cartels. Some of these banks operating in the city of London have been known to have committed criminal acts so serious that it has even reached the mainstream media; that is rare. Therefore, these many-monied institutions are given two options after having been “found out” after committing serious acts of fraud: they can either spend the rest of their lives in prison or pay a fine, not out of their own pocket but out of the pockets of others.  The choice is inevitable. Only a madman would choose the former option.  Even after the disgraceful practices are disclosed to the wider public fraud continues nonetheless. Incidentally, banking is one of the top professions where psychopathy is prevalent.

Oil is also another area where criminal actions occur, and as is the case with banking cartels, this is widely known.  After the First World War or the Great War, as it was known seven major oil companies known as the “Seven Sisters”, devised a plan between themselves in a perverse capitalist objective.  These companies were:

●      Anglo-Persian Oil Company (United Kingdom):
●      Gulf Oil (United States):
●       Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands/United Kingdom)
●      Standard Oil of California (SoCal) (United States)
●      Standard Oil of New Jersey (Esso) (United States):
●      Texaco (United States)
●      Standard Oil Co. of New York (Socony) (United States)

Emine Dilek writes:

 In 1928, three main global petroleum producers met in the Scottish castle named Achnacarry, to sign a secret contract in order to control and distribute the world’s oil and the profits from the oil business. The agreement is known as the Achnacarry Agreement, or “As-Is” Agreement, was signed on September 17th, 1928…

Their vision was that the production zones, transport costs, sales prices – everything would be agreed and shared. And so began a great cartel, whose purpose was to dominate the world, by controlling its oil.

Soon, other biggest oil companies joined them in the plot. Now, they were known as the Seven Sisters: Exxon, Shell, BP, Mobil, Texaco, Gulf and Chevron...

At the end of the First World War, through signed treaties, France and Britain divided up the Middle East that was taken over from the Ottoman Empire. American oil companies were enraged. An American oil broker, Kalouste Gulbekian, came up with a solution. The plan was to create a red zone around the oil rich areas of the Middle East, and form a new oil company to equally own shares. The company was called Iraq Petroleum Company.

Oil filled lands were bought from the land owners without disclosing the riches their lands were hiding underneath the ground. Governments of the countries, such as the Shah (king) of Iran, were bought and paid for by the oil companies through bribes and other forms of political and military support guarantees.

Oil companies became more powerful than governments. Delivery of the oil also was such a crucial matter that in USA or Britain no one could become a President unless they guaranteed the smooth delivery of the oil to the refineries and sellers.

Oil companies were so dominant that they set the rules in every aspect of the oil production, its export and prices. Together with covert agencies of USA and British Governments, they have helped create and support the monarchies in Iran and Saudi Arabia, toppled democratically elected leaders who refused to be bribed, opposed the creation of OPEC and profited from the Iran-Iraq war, leading to the ultimate destruction of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

BP has a wicked history concerning these matters; I cite two examples.  During the time of the Red Line Agreement it was Venezuela which became the world's’ leading oil producer; after the second world war, the dynamics of strategic power and interests changed: it was Saudi Arabia which overtook Venezuela the decades that followed this, with furtive deals with the U.S which allowed America to control oil reserves in the Middle East.  In 1952 disaster struck the western world: Gamal Abdel Nasser ruled over Egypt for almost two decades, during that time he committed one particular major crime: he overthrew the yoke of western imperialism and instead opted for Arab nationalism.

Before and during Nasser’s first few years in power, parts of the region were in turmoil. In Iran, there was a spate of demonstrations by a popular uprising.  Mohammad Mossadegh led this movement.  The main reason for the protests was the oil giant, BP. They were literally controlling vast amounts of the Iranian economy, at the behest of the British government. In 1953, when Mossadegh was Prime Minister of Iran, he nationalised Iranian oil.  The response was inevitable; the British government, backed up by their ally in North America, overthrew Mossadegh and subjected Iran to a savage nightmare. 

Fifty years later BP were at it again.  It was against another enemy of the west, Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan revolutionary or “mad dog”, if we listen to Ronald Reagan long enough.  Tony Blair, during that time, was the British Prime Minister, which is significant.  During talks with Gaddafi he decided the Libyan would relinquish his chemical weapons then he would “do business” with him.  Roughly translated as opening up the markets in Libya.  BP were once again, accruing huge profits in these somewhat clandestine deals.  It was not so long after this period that Al Baset Al-Megrahi was released from prison for one of the worst terrorist atrocities in the 1980s.  The lengths BP have gone to in order to accrue stupendous profits is quite astonishing. 

Other major oil companies tell a similar story.  However, one other area of repugnancy is the fast-food cancer factories such as McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Domino's Pizza Hut, KFC, as well as many others.  Again, these companies have one key objective: to maximise their profits, in fact their objective is two-fold.  The other objective is to gain control over markets, thus creating smear campaigns in putting smaller competitors out of business altogether. This “junk” food which these sub-cultural, sub-human, inhumane factories operate under giving people all sorts of dietary problems and health dilemmas, including cancers, heart-attacks, strokes, and a whole array of other terrible conditions.  All this is for financial profit.  Nevertheless, one should not be so surprised because after all, we live in a world of the free market and any sort of morality seems miles away in the distant hills. 

Globalisation is an interesting term, and it ought to be tackled.  A great deal of people have written about this matter, coming to debate it from a range of different angles. One man that wrote about it was Vladimir Lenin. Nevertheless, in Lenin’s lifetime-he died in 1924-capitalism in comparison to today’s world was incomparable in terms of private power.  Enmeshed in this globalised  sort of terror is the public relations industry which Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays wrote about, and public relations is synonymous with propaganda, and propaganda ties in with the entertainment industry, which is essentially the public relations industry anyway.  It is corporate private power that advertises throughout the entire industry.  It also goes through sport, all forms of popular culture and so on.  All advertising, or rather, what is referred to as advertising, ought not to exist. It ought not to exist because it is crypto corporate fascism, and we are forced to watch this obscenity.  With marketing, they remove all other cultures and replace them with infantile, unrelenting defecation. 

 But, why? Well it has different functions of course.  In the media, it creates better selling power; it helps to depoliticise and pacify people. It de-intellectualises the individual, and so long as they are following these puerile, irrational, frivolous trends, such as spectator sports, following a person or perhaps a group of them like a religious fanatic, they are out of harm's way.  They are not thinking about the things they ought to be thinking about and of course all of this is rationalised.  This nonsense creeps into serious journals, it is even spoken by highly respected professors in educational establishments, it is on the high street, in shops, at the workplace, even on the street.  This barbarity is inescapable. Yet when one mentions Herbert Marcuse, Edward Herman or Erich Fromm, they are laughed at, branded as extremists, and told they ought not to exist. 

Never mind Aristotle’s insights, Beckett’s absurdity, Steinbeck’s humanity, Homer’s picturesque poetry, John Stuart Mill’s liberalism or anything of the sort.  Now, we are told we must forget all this insignificant indulgence.  Instead, you must not be a dinosaur and become a “modern man”, and think “business”; everything else ought not to exist at all.  For business is the new way.  If there is no profit in this or that then it really ought not to be done; what good will come of it? 

The rules of the game have changed, so to speak.  Now, even CEOs appear on television shows, encouraging their viewers to engage in real principles: the avarice of financial greed and a lust for “free enterprise”, and not much else besides.  The person who reads Sophocles or Heinrich Boll is a danger, a danger to this whole ideology.  Thinking outside of this spectrum is strictly forbidden, and for having such iconoclast beliefs, you must be eliminated from airing your insidious and tiresome views; there is no opportunity to speak in the mainstream media; you are eliminated.  This is a model, which has been hideously successful.  The career liberal journalists would rather close their vacuous mouths and do as they are told.

This is intolerable; nevertheless, it appears indomitable.  What is this called?  It is clearly a form of totalitarianism.  Nevertheless, it goes far beyond even that.  When private concentrated power controls many aspects of our peculiar lives, and in this abominable way, it is a fundamentalist sort of fascism; that is not to be mocked at.  Fascism, many people believe, are Hitler’s gas chambers, Stalin’s gulags, and so on.  Political fascism not only exists but there is financial, as well as fiscal.  For it eliminates entire sections of society, of every society.  People call Hitler a fascist; Lenin a socialist; Thatcher, a conservative and Pinochet a benevolent dictator.  They are all fascists.

 For at the heart of their ideology is free market fundamentalism.  In fact, Lenin was perhaps a more virulent free market villain than Thatcher ever was.  So in Britain, the U.S, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and much of the world have political parties with a single thing in common: they all are part of a fascist ideology because they stick to the free market economic model.  This is seen as rational governance; it should not be. 

A great number of eminent people today have their heroes, heroines and inspirations like Milton Friedman, Jeffrey Sachs and others.  However, these same people do not worship, or at least do not claim to worship figures such as General Franco, Heinrich Himmler or Pol pot.  Yet the only difference is that the economic fascists like have not been found out.

We live in an age now where people feel the inescapable need to hide their perverse acts and views because it is not tolerated by modern society, and inevitably the public relations industry is geared to protect the “ethical” companies and “green” corporations, and so on.  When people vent their ire and tempers-it is inevitably at political power and not private power. For private power is well protected and their repugnant crimes are largely hidden, and so people become unaware of such practices.  The propaganda model, which protects these criminal acts, has even metamorphosed the legacy of Adam Smith, as we have seen. Big business and private unelected tyrannies are the order of the day, nothing else will do. 

30th March-6th April 2014

This is the second part of essays on 'crime'...see my previous post for the first part.  The third part will be posted shortly.

Essays on Crime (1) Members of Parliament

There is a common maxim, often quoted by a relatively large group of people: “crime does not pay”. This adage is an absolute absurdity because it is fundamentally false. Those who commit the most loathsome and grotesque crimes are seldom caught, because such individuals get state protection to some degree, but not totally. When a member of parliament sexually assaults another human being, it is nothing more than a “misdemeanour”, or an “unfortunate incident”, when they thieve money and defraud the public purse, they have made a “catastrophic miscalculation”, when they fund terror groups, they are “acting in the public interest”, when they support the wholesale destruction of towns, villages, cities, even countries, they are “acting with the utmost decency”. Therefore, the very idea that crime does not pay is an absolute lunacy. The opposite ought to be applied: crime pays very handsomely to this class of people.

When people from different cultural backgrounds, different classes and regions use the maxim quoted above it is not in reference to the criminal class of politicians but the general population. These are the people, most of which are subject to a kind of class warfare; but for the majority, they do not even know it. Therefore, crime only applies to them; nobody else commits crimes. Open up a newspaper, put on the radio, watch news programmes on the television and on the internet. The result is entirely predictable. There are images, as well as moving images of men, women, and sometimes-even children who have committed “wicked”, “nefarious”, “abominable”, “evil”, “premeditated” crimes. We know their names because we are forced to know their names; we know their crimes, and we know their prison sentences because we are tormented by the mass media. 

After these “news” items have withered away from our television screens, we are able to vent our anger at these “sociopaths”, “lunatics”, “perverts” and “vile criminals”. It is discussed in the market place, at home, in work, at our social gatherings; it is discussed everywhere, even in prisons, and the next day the same process begins anew. We see the days go by, the weeks soon disappear, the months dissipate and so on. All the while members of parliament are committing legal crimes but are seldom reported, and when it is there is a cover-up to a certain degree by a great number of authorities including the police, the politicians themselves, journalists, intellectuals, judges, the secret services. What are these legal crimes, one may ask.

Because Britain is such a secret state and a silent one, most of the crimes committed by members of parliament will forever be unknown to the public. However, of the ones we do know about there is an abundance of crimes. For example Mr. Muhammad gives copious amounts of donations to people who like to blow people’s arms and legs off. He is likely to spend much of his life behind bars, because, it is, so we are told, funding terrorists. But when the state does it different rules and principles are applied; when the wanderer, the man with nowhere to go and no bed to sleep in, steals because he is hungry, he, for his troubles, is given a criminal record, and receives some form of punishment, but when members of parliament use taxpayers money to fund their lavish and extravagant lifestyles, stealing, as the case may be, up to tens of thousands of pounds, they are applauded by their colleagues; when the brute beats his partner half to death, he is branded the greatest monster that ever existed, and is handed a life sentence. When the government beats the heads of the electorate with an ideological sledgehammer, conducting economic warfare on millions of people, they are urged to create only more barbaric crimes, translated as laws. 

What is most repugnant about these people is the constant portrayal of them as grand moralists, and that they have “values” that they care deeply for humanity and could not even bear to see even a rodent in pain. If the majority of the population decided it was perfectly acceptable to murder, rape, rob, defraud and act cruelly to their neighbours, these politicians would support these actions because, for them, crime overrides any act of decency, principles, and good moral conduct. There are exceptions of course, not every member of parliament commits terrible abuses and crimes, but there are few of them, their voices are echoed and their names remembered.

These same politicians have been, and continue to be responsible for millions of displaced people all over the world, they are also responsible for grave criminal acts, such as concentrated bombing, invasion, colonisation, imperialism, but their most persistent war is one against their own people. In Anthony Burgess’ iconic novella, A Clockwork Orange, Frank Alexander, and we presume, a great deal of others, are put in prison because they are “subversives”. These people have the temerity to criticise the state. It is these people in the real world, not in a dystopian nightmare, that they face the boot of oppression. There is little need to put these dissidents behind bars because Britain is an open-air prison anyway. Freedom of speech, of expression no longer exist, protesting is illegal, Britain is not a police state, as many people believe, but a prison one and a police one rolled into one.

Noam Chomsky, the U.S linguist said, “If the Nuremberg laws applied every post war American President would have been hanged.” He was quite right of course. Nevertheless, almost every government of the bloodiest century in history, the twentieth century, so we are told and beyond, are guilty of heinous and immoral crimes. It is also the case every administration covers up the crimes of the previous one. Members of parliament in Britain are not quite the simpatico’s they claim to be; instead they are prevaricating, feral, bellicose and vacuous. The popular figures in twentieth century politics, appear to be heroes, and people of good character. Well that fairy tale ought to be quashed because their actions contradict this quixotic fantasy.

Ken Loach, the film director, directed a documentary called the spirit of ‘45. In it there are generous words said in praise of the Attlee Government, and evils deeds about the Thatcher administration. Well, what Loach does not touch upon is the barbaric actions of this same Attlee Government. Palestine is not mentioned, nor are the hundreds of thousands that were forcibly removed from their native land. The Israeli Historian, Avi Shlaim, highlights Aneurin Bevan's role in this monstrous affair, who was Foreign Secretary in Atlee’s Government, yes, Bevan’s role was an abominable one. Nye Bevin summed him up perfectly. After Bevan supported British “intervention in Greece, Bevan said of his fellow MP: “Mr Bevin has described what is happening in Greece. I have no time to answer him. However, there is one complete answer. Only three bodies of public opinion in the world have gone on record in his support, namely Fascist Spain, Fascist Portugal and the majority of Tories in the House of Commons”. This same Government held kept prisoners of war until 1948 and even kept them in forced labour camps; not even the Americans managed this feat, they were starved, beaten, and all this, shall we say, was in the spirit of ‘45, and beyond. Incidentally, such agreements contravene the Geneva Convention of Human Rights.

Before the Attlee Government and its peccant practices was that decorated leader, worshipped for all eternity, Winston Churchill. Heathcote Williams, the English poet, highlights some of the Great War leader’s finest achievements:

Churchill had a school-friend called Aubrey Herbert who, in 1915, wrote in his diary, “Winston's name fills everyone with rage. Roman emperors killed slaves to make themselves popular, he is killing free men to make himself famous.” “A curse should rest on me,” Churchill said, “because I love this war. I know It's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment and yet I can't help it. I enjoy every second.” “I don’t understand this squeamishness about the use of gas”, Churchill would say. "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." "I do not admit,” Churchill said "that any great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race has come in and taken its place”. After Hitler came to power, Churchill proclaimed that' If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable [as Hitler] to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations." And to Mussolini, whom he addressed In Rome on 20 January 1927, he declared: “I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by Signor Mussolini’s gentle and simple bearing and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers. If I had been an Italian, I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. I will, however, say a word on an international aspect of fascism. Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world. 'I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.' 'After today we begin to burn villages. Every one. In addition, all who resist will be killed without quarter. The Mohamads need a lesson, and there is no doubt we are a very cruel people.” Such action was vital, Churchill argued, because the Pashtuns “recognise superiority of race”.

It was once said to me by a rather dilapidated person, but educated in some respects, Harold Wilson, he said, was one and only true leader of the working man, and a true socialist. This was no laughing matter because he was more serious than I thought possible. It is entirely possible this “mad anarchist”, as he liked to call himself, was aware of the effects on the indigenous people on Diego Garcia. These people, like the Palestinians two decades before them, were forcibly removed from their land (to make way for an American military base). According to journalist John Pilger: “During the 1960s, in high secrecy, the Labour government of Harold Wilson conspired with two American administrations to "sweep" and "sanitize" the islands”. He goes on:

"To get rid of the population, the Foreign Office invented the fiction that the islanders were merely transient contract workers who could be "returned" to Mauritius, 1,000 miles away. In fact, many islanders traced their ancestry back five generations, as their cemeteries bore witness. The aim, wrote a Foreign Office official in January 1966, "is to convert all the existing residents ... into short-term, temporary residents."

This ethnic cleansing is not even part of history. For most, it never happened. As George Orwell says: “If a leader says such and such of an event, ‘it never happened’-well, it never happened. If he says that two and two make five-well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs”.

When an “offender”, as the probation service, police and prison officers like to call men and women who find themselves confined to prison for whatever reason, are released, and placed on “licence”, a probationary period, a list of their “conditions” are drawn up. One of these conditions is usually for the ex-prisoner to stay away and not associate with any known “offenders”. Nevertheless, as we have seen, different precepts apply to statesmen and their colleagues. The most cruellest and sadistic megalomaniacs in history have been faithful allies to British Prime Ministers past, present and no doubt for posterity. These “allies” are known and so are their crimes.

 One of Tony Blair’s closest allies was Ariel Sharon, the former Prime Minister of Israel. It was Sharon, in 1982, as Defence Minister, who oversaw massacres in Shatila and Sabra but what is more obscurely known is his terrorist past. In 1953, the El-Bureig refugee camp in Gaza was subject to a bloody massacre by Sharon’s 101 units; two months later, he headed another massacring operation in the village of Qibya, Jordan. United Nations military observers described the they witnessed:

 Riddled bodies near the doorway and multiple bullet hits on the doors of the demolished houses indicated the inhabitants had been forced to remain until their homes were blown up over them...witnesses were uniform in describing their experiences as a night of horror, during which Israel soldiers moved about in their village blowing up buildings, firing into doorways and windows with automatic weapons and throwing hand grenades.

These were what Sharon called “reprisals”. In the 1970s, the same man forcibly removed thousands of farmers from their own land, their houses were bulldozed and their crops destroyed. I have deliberately left out Sharon’s biggest crimes, but an ally of Tony Blair nonetheless.

Thatcher can better her affiliations in the rogue gallery. There is Saddam Hussein, whom she supplied mustard gas to; she supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; the admiration of the Chilean fascist, Augusto Pinochet; the Indonesian mass murderer, General Suharto; the Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin; the Mujahedeen; the white supremacists in South Africa and so on. This is true of every Prime Minister in history. They, every single one of them, are reprobates; they are amoral and scrupulous thugs. The exception, so we are told, is John Major: that peaceful and amicable man. So amiable that he bears much responsibility for the starvation and liquidation of Iraqi children in the 1990s, in the form of sanctions. He was such a good man that he was content to witness the genocide in Rwanda. Such amicability.

However, there is an important point to be made here. These members of parliament past and present whose “hands are clean”, need not expect to be applauded at all. For they are part of a system that is criminal from the outset. It has a criminal structure as well as a criminal framework and they know as much. The people they claim to represent are subjected to a sort of permanent Kafkaesque nightmare of terror. Their lives are emptied of any sort of meaning, any individuality. For that is the great evil of capitalism, it soon enough, breaks the individual. These same individuals are robbed (in the form of taxes), have their freedoms reduced (in the form of work), and so on.

If an individual witnesses a crime, and is part of that clique or clan, they are as much criminals as the perpetrators, so we are told. It should be no different to members of parliament. If they wish to be part of a criminal system, they must be designated as criminals from the outset. The free market, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, NATO, and so on are all criminal enterprises, as well as the Monarchy. People who are part of the system are part of the problem. There are lone and moral voices in the Houses of Parliament but such voices are so distant and removed from public attention that their existence is nothing but a cruel joke.

27-29th March 2014

This is the first of 8 essays on 'crime'. The second instalment shall be posted soon.

 

 

 

the Evil that Men do

On  page seventeen of philip Roth’s The Plot Against America, he writes:

I would have imagined Lindbergh's not mentioning the Jews in his acceptance speech to be a promising omen, an indication that he had been chastened by the outcry that had caused him to relinquish his Army commission or that he had changed his mind since the Des Moines speech or that he had already forgotten about us or that secretly he knew full well that we were committed irrevocably to America-that tough Ireland still mattered to the Irish and Poland to the Poles and Italy to the Italians, we obtained no allegiance, sentimental or otherwise, to those Old World countries that we had never been welcome in that we had no intention of ever returning to.  If I could thought through the meaning of the moment in so many words, this is probably what I would have been thinking.  But the men out on the streets thought differently.  Lindbergh's Jews was to them a trick  and no more, the initiation of a campaign of deceit intended both to shut up and catch us off guard.  “Hitler in America!” the neighbours cried.  “Fascism in America!  Storm troopers in America!”  After their bombing having gone without sleep all night long, there was nothing that those bewildered elders of ours didn’t think and nothing that they didn’t say aloud, with our hearing,  before they started to drift back to their houses (where all the radios still blared away), the men to shave and dress and grab a cup of coffee before heading for work and the women to get their children clothed and fed and ready for the day.

Charles Lindbergh is Philip Roth’s fascist-to-be in 1940s America.  The enemy: Jews.  Over the 1930s and 1940s it was not only Germany that created and preached anti-semitic sentiment, it was prevalent all throughout Europe. The onslaught against Jews everywhere reached new levels of depravity after the great war, or it is often referred, the first world war.  A media onslaught had became visibly more aggressive during this time.  Its aim?  Brainwashing people to despise Jews, and blame them for all society's ills.  The English newspaper, the Daily Mail, was one of these media outlets which attempted to create a frenzy against the great enemy.  Even Shakespeare wrote about the persecution of Jews hundreds of years ago: “He hath disgraced me, and hindered me a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies, and what is his reason?  I am a Jew”.

Six million corpses later and the brainwashing media are a little different to the Weimar press.  Back then Jews were cast as the enemy, now the chosen foe is not a single ethnic or religious group but the impoverished poor: victims subject to the harsh conditions of the welfare state, asylum seekers, refugees and other life’s unfortunates.  Newspapers such as the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Times, the Daily Telegraph, all English newspapers, use this same methodology to instill fear and hate to the rest of the entire population.  Take immigration.

“We got is wrong on immigration”, say the British Labour Party.  Did they indeed?  It is interesting why they said this when they did. The population of England were overwhelmingly angry of the levels of immigration seen under this Labour Government.  They did not believe what they say for a second, but in order to be re-elected, they are willing to fabricate almost anything to get support from the “right wing” press.  Yet under this same Government there were horrific levels of abuse concerning these impoverished unfortunates.  

Amelia Gentleman, the Orwell Prize-winning Guardian journalist, is one of those rare finds who documents the appalling cases of abuse and suffering; her humanity and humility towards others is touching.  She recounted an abominable case, which for many, is very difficult to believe.  Believe it they should, for it is the truth. A young Moldovan girl, in fact a child is what she was, this child, at fourteen-years-old, who at the time, according to Gentleman, was:

Living with her mother in Moldova when two older men invited her and a friend to a birthday picnic in a nearby forest. Both girls were knocked unconscious, driven to Romania, blindfolded, taken across a river in an inflatable dinghy to somewhere in Hungary, dressed in dark clothes and made to walk through the forest across the border during the night, passing through Slovenia and arriving eventually in Italy.

They were sold onto two separate men. Katya worked first in a flat in Rimini and then on the streets of Milan. After some months, she managed to escape and was sheltered for a while in the Moldovan embassy there, when she discovered she was pregnant.

This was the start of the horror that was unfolding for Katya, for that was the child's name.  After reporting what had happened to the Italian police, she returned to Moldova where she was found by this gang, and killed her pet dog as punishment, raped and beat her.  A friend of hers has been murdered by one of these trafficking gangs.  The horror of trafficking happened once again for Katya while she was in Turkey, ordered to work in a nightclub and from there was taken to london.  Katya comments about the clients there: “they're drunk, and just come and say, 'Give me this, that'. No one asks: 'How are you?'. Some of them asked, 'Why do you do this job?', but I wouldn't answer," she said, explaining that she was afraid that if she appealed to them for help, they might turn out to be friends with the trafficker.”  Fortunately for Katya the place was raided by the police, and because of threats of her Albanian captors, they had already killed her dog, so she only revealed snippets of information to protect her family.  In this wonderful country, her trafficker was permitted to visit her on eight separate occasions.  The next part of Katya’s story is truly sickening.

According to the girl, now an adult of course, said this some time later in court

They took me to a forest and I was beaten and raped. Then they made a noose out of rope and told me to dig my own grave as I was going to be killed.... They tied the noose around my neck and let me hang before cutting the branch off the tree. I really believed I was going to die. They then drove me to a house where many men were staying. They were all very drunk and took turns to rape me. When I tried to resist, one man physically restrained me and pulled my front tooth out using pliers.

But there is something missing, one may add.  How could this happen a third time?  There is a very simple answer to that question.  Britain, under the Labour Government sent her back to Moldova, in their impressive benevolence in responding to the sort of horrific abuse.  She survived this particular attack because of sheer luck.  They stopped attacking her because they thought she was still a commodity and they trafficked her to Israel where more systematic and malevolent abuse took place, before once again being taken to London.  There was another police raid, once again, like last time she was in police detention, that is how girls like this are treated by the benign Labour party.  And again, knowing the horrors she had experienced decided to return her to her home country, that was the decision, however because it may prove to be bad publicity, they gave her refugee status in Britain.  

The (Conservative) Home Office Minister, Damian Green,  who was in the post the time the Gentleman article was written, 2011, said the following: "The UK has become a world leader in fighting trafficking and has a strong international reputation in this field."  Yes, so maybe the Government did get it wrong on immigration.  

There are common arguments against letting foreign nationals into the country.  All of them flawed.  The first is that they are “benefit scroungers”, putting across the very idea that is wonderful to live in a world where they can live in mild poverty, well this is an argument that has been had had.  There is no truth in it.  Foreign nationals claiming asylum do not get the benefits the natives get, primarily it is food vouchers they are entitled to and perhaps enough money to pay part of their bills but the crass media do not give us this information.  In fact they misinform the public deliberately, and put them into a frenzy.  People reading the Murdoch press literally believe asylum seekers are getting hundreds of pounds a week, even thousands, but this is false.  They receive £37 a week.

The second argument is that they are “taking all our jobs”, again, the intention is to whip the population into a frenzy. The argument is then is “they are taking our jobs”, the Sun, the Daily Mail, and Daily express, preach this fanatical nationalism, without mentioning relevant facts.  These newspaper groups, at least journalists writing for them do, would prefer to close the borders and stop immigration completely.  Rupert Murdoch is Australian, David Cameron roots come from abroad, as does the former Home secretary and leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard, the former Labour Party leader, Edward Miliband’s father was Belgian, the list goes on and on.  There are a huge amount of footballers who are foreign nationals and sports personalities in general, without immigration, the N.H.S would collapse.  The number of foreign-owned companies is startling.  How many Chinese “chippies” are there, Indian and Pakistani off-licences, paper shops, take-away foods, how many taxi drivers are foreign nationals? There are professors working in the universities, are we to send all these rascals out of Britain?

So these villains are taking all our jobs.  If the savage media, the government and opposition are so hell-bent against immigration, why not send them all back?  Send all the doctors back, send the nurses back, close all the Indian and Pakistani eating establishments, close down every Chinatown in the country and close down foreign-owned companies like McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, Cafe Nero, Ikea, kick out all the footballers who are not British, expel all foreign diplomats and ambassadors, that way there will be no more jobs left to steal.  At the same time, the country would barely exist anymore, the Treasury would lose hundreds of billions of pounds a year, the whole country would be decimated, state pensioners would get a fraction of the money they get today and many would die due to extreme poverty, there would be little money going into education, into the N.H.S, infrastructure, and soon enough the country would be no better than a third-world country.  People would be dying everyday in hospitals, in all hospitals in fact, wages would plummet to almost zero, most people would be homeless, children would be removed from their parents because they would be too poor to feed them.  Immigration has brought an exponential amount of benefits to the country, and this same savage media know as much.  

What is the third argument then?  They are taking our homes or houses.  Reports suggest, well not suggest but say that around 1 in 10 foreign born nationals live in social housing, so this whole xenophobic line that they are no houses or flats to live in because of immigration is a complete fallacy. Many immigrants are not even permitted to enter education or even work, and the slums in which these unfortunates are relocated is totally outrageous.  

One final point on this; the word “our” is illuminating here.  Just because you are born in the country or indeed any country, you are “our” and everybody else is “them”.  That you must be offered this job over “foreigners”, despite being indolent, insolent, unqualified and inexperienced and quite generally, a loathsome person. This is the argument of a fool.  These same fools have been discussing economic migrants and not the unfortunates claiming asylum for safety because they have endured terrible horrors beyond what most people can even imagine.  But why should “we” take these people, why “us”?

That is an interesting question.  The country, from the 21st century participated in the bombing of people’s homes in Afghanistan, Iraq, libya, and with the occupied territories, the British state, along with the U.S have created a mechanism to prevent peace, at the same time selling Israel weapons which are used to perpetuate the occupation-illegal under international law-as have the tens of thousands of settlements that have been built over a number of decades.  Why should Britain allow Afghans, Libyans, Iraqis and Palestinians across their border?

These “two-legged beasts”, as former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin refers to Palestinians, or rather perhaps Arabs in general, have been forcibly removed from their homeland with Full British backing and complicity, so when these Palestinians come to Britain what moral right do they have to refuse them? Well, they often do.  They are able to do so because what is really happening in Israel and the West Bank is a secret to many, because savage media groups choose not to report Israeli aggression.  

With Iraq and Afghanistan, well if you go bombing people's homes, again the following argument should be made: you have a moral duty to house these poor impoverished people.  It is as simple as that, with Libya, these rebels the Government supported, commit terrorist acts against the general population and this is well known, many of which are women. The “rebels” which the Government at the time supported commit shocking acts of violence against their own people, so when they come here from the prevention from being raped or tortured, Britain bears some culpability, it is the same with Syria. The two main political parties, or rather three, supported Bashar-al-Assad regime, as they supported Hosni Mubarak, the former President of Egypt, as the protests were raging, not  Prime Minister at the time but Tony Blair called him “a good man”, the same thing happened with Tunisia, Yemen and so on.  

These poor and impoverished people are just one aspect of these vicious attacks conducted by the media.  The second is the nation’s own citizens.  These are the country’s biggest unfortunates. It is the young, the disabled, the unemployed, the clinically depressed, single parents, jobless families, and working class communities in general.  first I would like to discuss single parents.

It is in the interest of the single parent not to work, if they do they will be robbed by the Government of almost every penny they earn.  They must pay income tax, council tax, rent,  they must pay to see the dentist, a doctor, pharmacist, but the most brutal thing of it all is the fees they are made to pay for  childcare.  There is a word people often use in the country, that word is freedom, but this freedom is without opportunity, and freedom without opportunity is not freedom at all.  These poor women are desperate to work, but if they do all their pennies will be removed from them.  It is as if they have a noose around their necks and they are just waiting for the nooses to tighten.  

They ought to get high paid paid jobs or enter higher education for this to happen, some may argue.  Indeed.  Can a single parent afford to get themselves into tens of thousands of pounds in debt?  The persistent tuition fees top-ups is a concerted effort in prohibiting working class people from going to university.  There is, for these people, little opportunity for work, little opportunity for education, and these single parents, mainly mothers, are living in a sort of Kafkaesque nightmare.  Many live in miserable poverty, they bring up their children and they too live in poverty, and so it goes.

These policies that are created, to many, remain a secret, because the savage media and corporate television media choose not to report it.  They, instead, choose to write about “benefit dodgers” and benefit cheats”.  To make matters worse, as if they were not already bad enough for these young mothers, they are being taxed, or rather, robbed further.  

It is not only single parents that just are affected either.  It is affecting the jobless and other vulnerable groups.  It is pushing people into unsavory areas, into slums, whose lives of appalling suffering is assured.  George Osborne, tells people to be up at 6am, looking for work.  This is from a man who has made more cuts than every hair dresser in Europe combined.  It reads like a dystopian science fiction novel.  You must look harder for jobs, yet where are these jobs, we may ask?  There are jobs, that is true.  These jobs, however, come in the form of temporary and part-time work and “zero-hour contracts”.  Of the full-time vacancies, if one is lucky enough to get one of these, the person will hold on to it as if they were holding on to life itself.  This is the rub.  The employer can make unacceptable demands, treat you like a dog, what is the employee going to do, leave?  A situation has now been created and now, finding a full-time job is like finding a treasure chest full of gold.  While at the same time, legal aid has been cut, so you are no longer liable to get legal aid if you are unfairly dismissed.  

VAT is now 20%, and that is designed to make the poor pay tax. Put it in this context, the poor pay more tax per income earned than any other people.  When work does turn up, it is always in some cancer factory like McDonalds, Burger king or Pizza Hut.  It is these people who have ceased to be human beings.  They live like robots and still can barely afford to live. This is the kind of society that is being created by these these loathsome free market fundamentalists.  

In 1933 Adolf Hitler Was democratically elected chancellor of Germany.  Paul Joseph Goebbels became Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda in 1933, controlling the press, radio and all aspects of culture; Hermann Wilhelm Goering became the Commander of the German airforce in 1934.  He founded the gestapo which he headed until 1936;  Karl Adolf Eichmann was responsible for carrying out Hitler’s Final Solution, administering concentration camps; Walter Richard Rudolf Hess was the deputy leader of the Nazi party from 1934-1941.  Heinrich Himmler led the SS from (1929-45) and the gestapo (1936-45 )

David Cameron assumed the premiership in the United Kingdom in 2010.  Ian Duncan Smith became the Secretary of State for Works and Pensions (DWP);  George Osborne held the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer; William Hague, the foreign Secretary; Theresa May, the Home Secretary; Michael Gove, the Education Secretary

There are a lot of similarities between Adolf Hitler and David Cameron.  The German Chancellor was democratically elected and David Cameron’s party received more votes than any other political party in the country; he became Prime Minister.  But of course Hitler was never re-elected but still carried on ruling Germany.  Gillian Tett of the Financial Times, has spoke of “technocratic governments”, in abolishing what she calls democracy, and replacing it with a government, so they are able to deal with the markets.  It is clear though David Cameron, right from the outset never had the authority to terrorise the population and others like Hitler did.  Britain has functioning democratic forms and factions.  The police have a code of conduct which they are supposed to abide by, as do prisons, schools, the law courts and so forth.  Britain has civilised European neighbours, as well as the European court, the World Court of Justice, the United Nations, the Hague, the International Criminal Court, and so on.  If David Cameron even attempted Hitler’s terror, he would soon be removed from his position and thrown in prison.  

Instead David Cameron does enough to terrorise the wretched poor, and attempts to justify such actions, as not to fall foul of the law.  Corporate television media and the mainstream press is already under virtual control of corporate groups and to a lesser extent, the Government.  The BBC, is state controlled, to varying degrees.  Under this Government Chris Patten was the chairman of the corporation, a man who was a Conservative Member of Parliament and a crazed Thatcherite.  When cuts were announced they mentioned the BBC as being a “government department”.  Greg Dyke, lost his job at the BBC because he had an independent voice.  Dissident voices in the BBC is strictly forbidden.  

Instead of creating gas chambers, labour camps, death squads and so on, David Cameron instead has created economic genocide, forcing people into a hellish poverty, taxing the poor, forcing the desperate out on the streets, cutting money to education, the social services, annihilating the N.H.S, privatising public services, the N.H.S is no longer about helping people, it is about big private power accruing stupendous profits and persecuting the poor who use the service.  Education is no longer about education; it is about greed.  The “free schools” are a perfect example of this, as are the top-up in tuition fees,  and Toby young, who does not call himself a madman, certainly sounds like one when he propagates these free school policies.  The welfare state is no longer about protecting the vulnerable, it is about liquidating and privatising the lot of it. Foreign aid is no longer about helping deprived and poverty-stricken countries, but has more to do with foreign investment and trade deals, many prisons are now privatised, as is much of the probation service, even the police.  Everything has been privatised apart from terrorism and that has been nationalised.  David Cameron then, plays the part of Adolf Hitler.

Ian Duncan Smith parades around like he is a moral crusader.  His job: to help the poor and impoverished, in fact he is playing the part of Joseph Goebbels himself.  He introduced a “bedroom tax” to tighten the noose on the miserable poor, he has capped benefits which is pushing many young people onto the streets, forcing the disabled, the clinically depressed on job seeker’s Allowance, the Universal Jobmatch has been setup to monitor people and get access to their online activity which is illegal under European and international law, this Orwellian idea was introduced without a hint from the media, the miserable poor are also being forced to pay council tax too.  The young are bearing much of the attacks.  The Goering sadist has  a favoured discrimination law, against is the young, which is why, if you are under 35, you get a pittance of money to pay your rent if you are out of work, so little in fact that if you don’t work, it is at home with your parents or on the streets, or perhaps they can go to hostels with maniacs, drunkards, heroine addicts and scoundrels.  Ian Duncan Smith is the Propaganda Minister in all but name, inducing people that he doing his best to help the poor, when in reality he is giving them a death sentence.  

George Osborne, has a kind of evil lurking within him.  Instead of death squads butchering people on the streets, George Osborne who plays the part of Heinrich Himmler, employs economic death squads.  VAT rose to 20%, as to force the poor to pay more tax, and the rich paying less, cut income tax for the wealthy, but not for the poor and creating tax havens for the millionaires.  

Cutting public services is a form of terror, of oppression, of ethnic cleansing.  Every on the nefarious government is based on money, capital and stupendous profits.  Anybody not fitting in with this framework is eliminated from society, that roughly is what fascism does.  Hitler eliminated Jews, blacks, Slavs, the sick, the infirm, the disabled and so on.  George Osborne playing the part of Himmler does not have the support of gassing and torturing people so instead he uses economic warfare as a viable alternative.  We are all in it together, so the saying goes.  They somehow justify economic warfare, something this Himmler calls cuts.

At least 100 billion pounds a year is lost through tax evasion/avoidance.  That would pay off the deficit and the cuts would be unnecessary.  In their first five-year term they spent around 20 billion terrorising Afghanistan alone, the imperial family are paid huge amounts of money, stolen from the taxpayer of course.  Bankers bonuses and extortionate wages are acceptable, yet the wretched poor and their lavish lifestyles are not.  Billions a year are spent on neo-liberal institutions like the European Union, the IMF and the World Bank, not to mention terrorist organisations like NATO.

This economic warfare, an extension of class warfare is successful because the British electorate are far more docile today than at any other time in history.  Not until large amounts of the population sign petitions, write letters of complaint, demonstrate in their tens of thousands, will things change.  The church, charity organisations, volunteer groups, NGOs, influential public figures all have a duty to speak out against these social Darwinist designs.   George Osborne has a lot in common with Heinrich Himmler.  Osborne likes his favoured brand of death squads, in the form of economic terrorism.

William Hague acted as Cameron’s bulldog, fighting his battles abroad.  His boss had no idea what to do abroad.  William Hague playing the part of Herman Goering.  This man bent Cameron’s ear on bombing Libya, destroying the country’s infrastructure.

A stupendous amount of Conservative members of Parliament have been keen to exit the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union completely.  Reasons for these things are seldom reported in the mainstream and corporate television media, but the reasons are obvious.  The Government believed there were too many rights, too many liberties democratic freedoms and human rights.  They would like to curtail them which is why they wish to pull away from such institutions.  

William Hague as Goering, acted as a hawkish anti-European.  Pulling out of the European court means the lack of maternity rights, paternity rights, worker rights, dismantling the labour laws, for example making it easier for employers to sack people.  It is about squashing people’s rights slowly.  The European Court of Human Rights exists to make sure countries like Britain do not violate and flounder international law. In Ecuador, during this time and and indeed after it, prisoners, all prisoners have the democratic right to vote, and so they did, most of which voted for Rafael Correa.  In Britain, such luxuries remained outrageous.  Margaret Thatcher outlawed prisoners’ voting rights in the 1980s.  David Cameron, in parliament, even went so far as to say “it makes me feel physically ill”, giving prisoners the vote, ignoring the European Court.  If the law is broken by the general population, they go to prison if the crime is serious enough, when government do it they get fines issued by the European Court. 

When the Conservatives were in opposition Liam Fox was the shadow Health Secretary, but even by his standards, his social Darwinism went too far: he wanted to create an American-based healthcare system based on insurance.  In other words, if you are poor, you will not get any access to healthcare treatment, David Cameron put Andrew Lansley is his place, five years later when they were elected lansley unveiled his horrific ideas for the NHS.  labour started the privatisation project under Blair, but he would take it much further than that.  He was comfortable giving four-fifths of the NHS budget, 80 billion pounds to general practitioners, coercing them to act as accountants.  They then would use this money to buy the patient's’ treatment.  It was based on competition,and the Mps could, if they wished, make financial gains by such transactions, and private companies would bid on patients’ treatment, the lowest bidder wins, which means the most inadequate treatment.  These reforms were so “complicated”, nobody understood them.

An apartheid system has been created in Britain.  But it is worse than that.  It is Social Darwinism in its purest form.  The rich have the greatest healthcare in the world; the poorest the worst.  Yet it is always accepted.  Britain is in the grip of fascism, and this does not come in the form of Tory Ministers but the free market itself.  It is not gas chambers, death squads and the like.  For the idea is simple, to quote a  Greek communist, “die, or be killed”.

5th-10th March, 2013

postscript

Since this was written a great deal more has happened and this warfare has reached sporadic levels.  In August of 2015 I signed a petition with some 300,000 others to get data released from the government.  This data was on deaths of welfare recipients after being declared fit for work: 10, 600 died after the first six-weeks.  Yes, ten-thousand-six-hundred people.  But it gets worse.  As a direct consequence of the government's actions over 81,000 welfare recipients died.  One young man, Mark Walsh, had starved to death.  After the police came to his bedsit they found half of a banana in his fridge.  He had starved because he was no longer able to get a taxi to shop for food, as he was physically disabled.  The government reduced his money to just £40 a work, and he had no family or friends and died alone.  This is one case of very many.  This is not a welfare program; it is a eugenics program.  A social darwinist experiment to eradicate degenerates and useless and worthless beings.  What has been created is year zero: there exists only work and death.  Who is to blame: you and me and everybody else in this pitiless and worthless country.  

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler