Darkness can be thought-provoking…

Is Earth Hour the ultimate in tokenism?

Is it Australia’s silliest export ever?

Do the marketeers, politicians, show-biz personalities and other media-promoted talking heads actually perform a useful role as ‘Change Agents’?

Or are sneering eco-sceptics right for once?

I for one believe that scepticism is misplaced. Effective marketing of tokenism can be a wonderful thing and should be more common.

British and German troops take a day off from killing each other, Christmas 1914

If only the troops in World War One, who fraternized across the trenches during Christmas 1914, had been backed by Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Who knows, we might have ended up with a peaceful 20th century – leaving humanity the resources to pursue happiness and wellbeing?

Another interesting exercise in tokenism is illustrated by the chart below. It shows world opium production between 1990 and 2004. The contribution of Afghanistan is so large it’s indicated separately.

Note the one year – 2001 – when co-operation between the Government (then under Taliban leadership) and the UN was so successful that Afghanistan’s opium harvest almost dropped to zero.

The world nearly began the new millenium junk-free – but the War on Terror soon fixed that.

Tokenism is all very well, but the War on Drugs is serious business. A limited supply is good business, but no supply= no business.

Western taxpayers should not imagine that maintaining a perpetual state of war in Afghanistan is an exercise in futility. From the perspective of weapons merchants and drug barons, it isn’t futile in the least.

I’m sure they’re very grateful the taxes of Americans, Brits and Australians are put to such discriminating use…

Do US/Western policies deliberately keep Afghanistan safe for opium production - or are the facts just bad luck?

The Sinking Lusitania (War Illusrated Vol 3)

In May 1915, a single torpedo from a German U-Boat sank the Lusitania,  a British passenger liner of the Cunard Fleet. The vessel went down in 18 minutes. It was a terrible maritime disaster.

Nearly 1,200 perished – both passengers and crew. Approximately 100 were children and more than a tenth of the casualties were American citizens. Coming only a few years after the Titanic tragedy, the sinking of the Lusitania captured the public imagination on both sides of the Atlantic.

The British media howled outrage. The ‘Piratical Hun’ had sunk a passenger ship. A civilian target!

The Lusitania Disaster reported in the New York Times

In the USA, supporters of Britian went into overdrive. It took all the skills of the German Ambassador of the day to calm down the Wilson Administration. In the event, the USA did not enter the Great War until two years later.

Part of the German ‘defense’ was their claim that the Lusitania carried armaments for the British war effort. On that basis, it was a legitimate military target. Germany argued the British were guilty of smuggling armaments on a civilian vessel, inviting massive loss of civilian life.

Germany lost World War One; the USA and Britain were victorious. Winners typically write the history books. Winston Churchill once remarked “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”

1915 British War Propaganda

Even so, by the mid-1920s, the British establishment had the decency to disown at least some of their most outrageous wartime propaganda.

For instance, they no longer maintained the Germans had used a ‘corpse factory’ to manufacture lubrication oils, as claimed in 1917. Even former wartime Prime Minister David Lloyd George had no appetite for upholding that ridiculous wartime lie  (see Falsehood in Wartime published in 1928, especially Chapter XVII). Lloyd George said:

“The story came under my notice in various ways at the time. I did not believe it then; I do not believe it now. It was never adopted as part of the armoury of the British Propaganda Department. It was, in fact, “turned down” by that department.”

The usual British establishment way. Oops. We lied by mistake, would you believe it! A clerical error! (How odd, in that case, that the mythical German corpse factory was so widely reported in the British press back in 1917.)

British War Propaganda c.1917

By contrast, long after World One One the mystery of the Lusitania was never really cleared up. Rumours persisted over the years that the British may have lied, but there was no proof.

Now, it seems, there is.

In late 2008, reports began to filter back of new evidence brought to the surface by a diving team sent to explore the wreckage. Just before Christmas, the Secret of the Lusitania: Arms find challenges Allied claims it was solely a passenger ship appeared in the British Daily Mail. It’s a ripping yarn!

Armaments carried by the Lusitania made the vessel an explosion waiting to happen. Almost certainly, this is why it made a rapid plunge to the depths, resulting in exceptionally high loss of life. An orderly exit using lifeboats was impossible.

Winston Churchill: Self-Appointed Wikipedia of his Era

The Head of the British Admirality at the time was none other than Winston Churchill. Churchill is one of the 20th Century’s most ubiquitous ‘usual suspects’. There is even speculation the old fox arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania, but no proof (emphases added):

Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is still unclear. A week before the disaster, he wrote to Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade that it was “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.”

Not all the lose ends of modern history have been cleared up yet.

Socrates, who advocated open discussion, even with a muse

We’re lucky that historians are at work, poring over humanity’s past so we can better understand how we got to this juncture.

Thank heavens these historians work so fearlessly in all areas of their subject matter (the whole of human history).

Yes, we’re fortunate the mainstream historical profession in the western world has such a deeply ingrained commitment to open inquiry and free speech.

Iceland is warming up, on a timescale that cannot be explained by global warming alone. Icelanders have been getting very hot under the collar.

Iceland, a model for 'People Power'?

‘People Power’ really does mean something in Iceland. It’s a concept Icelandic politicians and media must factor in. They don’t have any choice.

I’ve never visited that chilly land, but I’m impressed by what I see of the country and its people. My dog, who has a shaggy coat, would enjoy the weather.

I get the impression Icelanders are like a huge, unruly, extended family. In a family like that, when enough relatives get fed up, the going gets tough – even for the family patriarch and his inner circle.

That’s happening now in Iceland and I admire their feisty spirit. Icelanders, having come to the understanding that their country has been bankrupted by incompetents, swindlers and liars, don’t just drown their sorrows in front of the TV. They don’t put up with channel switching. They go out on the streets and abuse the local TV station personally, in significant numbers, spoiling the fun for smooth talking heads, the very people they blame for ruining the country’s economy.

If it happens to be New Years Eve, so much the better. Icelanders take their party to the TV studios. Associated Press reports:

A nationally televised meeting between Iceland’s prime minister and other political leaders was forced off the air Wednesday night when angry protesters disrupted the broadcast.

Geir Haarde: Iceland's Besieged Prime Minister

But this year’s show with Prime Minister Geir Haarde was cut short 45 minutes into the program when a torch-wielding crowd stormed Reykjavik’s Hotel Borg in an attempt to get to the studio.

Protesters inside and outside the hotel clashed with police, who fired pepper spray to disperse the 500-strong crowd. Some demonstrators threw water balloons, while others tossed firecrackers.

Far be it from me to suggest that anyone in Australia takes a leaf out of the Icelanders’ book. I would never make such a seditious suggestion.

Besides, a policeman was hospitalized in Reykjavik, whacked on the head with a brick. There were three arrests. Violence that’s not about genuine self-defense is not acceptable. I don’t suggest protestors throw bricks at cops.

The AP report continues:

Demonstrations have been largely peaceful — some protesters were reportedly invited in for coffee when they showed up at President Olafur Grimsson’s home earlier this month.

But other events have been violent. Icelandic authorities used tear gas for the first time since 1949 when a huge crowd tried to storm a police station in Reykjavik in November, and on Dec. 18, protesters smashed the windows of the country’s financial watchdog agency

The Icelanders, being distant from major centres of criminal activity on the planet, lack really good targets for their pent-up aggression. Quite unfair to hassle the Reykjavik police, I think. It’s unlikely they had much to do with the financial lunacy that torpedoed the Icelandic economy last year. And how angry can you get with a President who invites you in for coffee?

In a place like London, on the other hand, there are so many targets for angry peace activists the problem is the exact opposite. Where do protestors begin?

Location of Israeli Embassy in London

This week, the Israeli Embassy in London was the focus of public outrage. The Embassy is in Kensington, just outside the main vortex of power,  wealth and pageantry that’s modern central London.

No doubt Scotland Yard was expecting demonstrators. I bet London’s police force was tipped off well in advance that protests were coming. The Embassy would have known the Israeli military was about to go on the rampage, yet again. It may have slipped the word to the rather sinister Community Security Trust, which seems to be on chummy terms with the highest echelons of the Metropolitan Police and plenty of senior politicians, Labor and Conservative as well.

Protest outside the Israeli Embassy

If Israel keeps going with its murderous assault on Gaza, there will be rising anger in the streets of London over the coming days (and not only London, of course).

Of course, the State is ready for mass protest. It has extraordinary powers, acquired over many years and beefed up considerably since the pretext of ‘anti-Terrorism’ came along. I presume they expect bigger and bigger crowds outside Israeli Embassies unless the killing stops. The ‘authorities’ will have management plans and contingency plans… it’s so predictable.

Only once in modern times did the British State come close to losing the plot.

Chartist Poster: the day the Queen fled London

On the 10th April 1848, at the height of the Chartist protests, concerns for the safety of the Queen Victoria were so grave that she was relocated to the Isle of Wight.

For a moment, it seemed revolution had arrived in Britain.

Then the tide receded and the Monarch returned. Her family has reigned in reasonable comfort ever since. That’s another 160 years and counting…

68 years after the Chartist revolt, Britain was mired in a terrible war, waged principally between the great royal dynasties of Europe, including the British Imperial Family. Collectively, these Monarchs had been daft enough to start a war they now seemed unable to stop.

Relatively new research suggests that, as had long been rumoured, the British Government cut a most duplicitous deal with the international Zionist leadership, trading Palestine for Zionist assistance in securing America’s entry into the war.

Queen Victoria’s grandson, King George V was in all liklihood involved in negotiations with the leadership of the Zionist movement at that time. The King– more than anyone else in Britain – must have ‘signed off’ on the famous Balfour Declaration. Britain worked like that in 1916/7. The Prime Minister his Cabinet had day-to-day management power, but the Monarch was consulted on key strategic decisions.

For that reason, the notorious Balfour Declaration can be regarded, in essence, as an agreement between Europe’s two most powerful families of the day: the House of House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (which de-Germanized into the  ‘House of Windsor’ in mid-1917) and the House of Rothschild.

George V - Conned by Zionists?

Our generation typically views the Balfour Declaration as an outrageous act of arrogance.

How dare one nation (Britain) presume to hand over another land (Palestine) to a third party (the Zionists) – land that wasn’t even part of the Empire at the time?

Lord Walter Rothschild - a Rotter?

Because I’m opposed to imperialism, I share that view. But a lot of people didn’t in the early 20th century. The monarch and his Foreign Minister weren’t the only imperialists in Britain! In fairness to King George V, he was hereditary head of a gigantic Empire at the zenith of the modern imperial era. Cutting deals with other leaders over huge areas of land around the world was not unusual. Indeed, at the conclusion of World War One, the Treaty of Versailles was an orgy of deal making between the ‘great powers’ left standing. National boundaries were extensively re-drawn. New nations sprang into being.

It’s also true that the Balfour Declaration wasn’t such a ‘bad deal’ for the Palestinians, taken in full. After all, it included a crucial clause:

“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”

Notice the wording. It doesn’t say ‘understood’. it says  ‘clearly understood’. That’s rather clear, isn’t it? It’s amost as though the signatory didn’t quite trust the recipient of the letter. If so, Balfour was right.

Palestine - Betrayed by a Swindle

The Balfour Declaration gave indigenous Palestinians an effective right of veto. The British Crown agreed to an expansion of Jewish settlement in Palestine – as long as Palestinian civil and religious rights were not diminished.

Jews were invited to settle in Palestine. They were not given license to take it by force.

At the time the deal was stiched up, Britain was desperate for Zionist support to bring USA into the Great War on its side. The Lloyd George leadership was desperate to WIN the war at all costs, despite a generous peace offer from Germany. I suspect if the Zionists had asked to settle a few million Jews in Britain, King and cabinet would have happily agreed.

Like Germany at the time – Britain was not ‘anti-Jewish’ to a significant extent. Jews were well represented at the highest levels in British society. Four decades earlier, Disraeli had been Prime Minister. The Rothschilds, probably the richest dynasty in the world, were partly headquartered in England. Had Zionist leaders at the time petitioned King George for the right to settle Jews in Kent, he might well have said yes – on similar terms to the Balfour Declaration.

Israel's Apartheid Wall: Zionism Carves up Palestine

But the Zionists didn’t want Kent, or even Yorkshire. They didn’t want Scotland or Ireland. They didn’t want Uganda – although they’d been offered a piece in 1903 by then Prime Minister Balfour, and thought twice before turning it down.

The Zionists wanted Palestine and the British Monarch of the day, through his Foreign Minister, granted their wish back in 1917. But the deal included a very clear understanding that Palestinian rights were not to be trashed.

The Zionist leadership has systematically reneged on that crucial part of the deal ever since.

It’s just possible there’s a secret annex to the Balfour Declaration. Is there a letter signed directly by King George perhaps, yet to be made public? Did King George scribble a handwritten note to Lord Walter Rothschild, saying “don’t worry about screwing the Arabs – do whatever you like!” If so, let’s see the documentation. The Great War ended more than 90 years ago, for heaven’s sake.

In the absence of additional new information, from where I sit, it looks to me like the House of Rothschild cheated the House of Windsor (along with the rest of humanity and most notably, of course, the entire Palestinian people).

Queen Elizabeth II: Unfinished Family Business in Palestine

Even in January 2009, believe it or not, Australians still swear oaths of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. Ask the armed forces.

As a loyal subject, I am not amused that the House of Windsor has been diddled by a family of con artists. It adds an extra dimension to searing anger over the desperate plight of the Palestinians – and outrage at an entire century of Zionist crimes, crimes that destroyed the lives of people in many parts of the world.

Not so long ago, the British upper classes used some choice words for cheats. They called them ‘rotters’, ‘scoundrels’ and ‘bounders’.

From a long-term historical perspective, the Rothschild family are true rotters. They’ve treated the House of Windsor with contempt. It’s more than annoying.

Spencer House in Knightsbridge, currently owned by rotters

At times like this, I’d like to be a British Tory with a Bentley, living near London. I’d fork out the congestion tax and drive to Knightsbridge. Then I’d park right as close to Spencer House as possible and honk my horn, as loud as possible, until the police politely ask me to move along.

By that time, I’d have sent text messages to at least two friends to take my place… and so on, all day, every day, until the rotters sell up and leave town. No more fund-raisers for neocons in a London Palace. No more rotters pretending to be gentlemen.

I’d let the Rothschilds and their lackeys know that duping Her Majesty’s grandfather is no small matter. For Monarchists, Palestine is personal. This is about family – a family rip-off.

Buckingham Palace. A Nice Neighbourhood

After a few days, in Buckingham Palace, not too far away, the Queen would probably inquire why the corgis keep barking. When explained to her, I’m sure the decent old lady would have a chuckle.

Unlike the spivs of Knightsbridge, Queen Elizabeth II is the antithesis of a sectarian, supremacist war monger. A decent role model for her people, she has been witness to the dismembering of Empire with dignity. To the extent that good relations remain within the ‘British Commonwealth’, she’s played an significant role in fostering goodwill. She has a humane, well-educated son to follow in her footsteps who has very welcome  environmental awareness.

Silly Prince Harry: dresses up like Zohan

Who knows, even the next generation of Windsors may turn out OK in the end? (Preferably before their limbs are blown off fighting illegal wars that have nothing to do with legitimate British interests)

If not, by the time one of them accedes to the throne, I shall very likely become a republican.

__________________________________

NOTE ON THE ORIGINS OF THE BALFOUR DECLARATION

In this article, I draw heavily on the work of ‘John Cornelius’, who published a series of four articles in the Washinton Report on the Middle East. They are:

• The Balfour Declaration and the Zimmermann Note (Sept 1997)
• Answering Critics of the Theory That Balfour Declaration Was Payoff for Zionist Services in WWI (Sept 1998)
• Palestine, the Balfour Declaration and Why America Entered the Great War (Nov 1999)
• The Hidden History of the Balfour Declaration (Nov 2005)

This is not ‘orthodox’ history. We are told in the byline: “John Cornelius is the nom de plume of an American with long-standing interest in the Middle East, who believes he has uncovered something important.”

Anonymity normally makes m suspicious. Yet there are, on occasions, legitimate grounds for authors using an alias. Having read the series, I’m impressed. The series is a first rate historical thriller for those who enjoy a little complexity. To me, this remarkable historical detective work also has the ring of authenticy.

Read it yourself and make up your own mind! I suggest you start at the beginning and work through in sequence – it’s an evolving mystery tale. The centre of the sting was the legendary ‘Zimmerman letter’. Public release of this infamous letter triggered the USA’s entry into the war.

IF ‘Mr Cornelius’ is correct, tremarkable trickery was orchestrated by the Zionist leadership in cahoots with ‘British Intelligence’ (not to be confused with ‘British Wisdom’, which has a much smaller budget). Cornelius argues that the sting was so cleverly done – and remained so politically explosive – that it was buried for many decades under further layers of disinformation. I think he may be right.